Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BATH EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAERNARVON) BILL

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CATTEWATER) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) BILL

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORKINGTON) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Recruitment

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new Civil Defence uniforms have been ordered for men and women separately; at what cost; and how many volunteers have been enrolled up to date.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Certain inter-Departmental arrangements have been made for the use of Government surplus materials, but no new uniforms have yet been ordered and the details are still under consideration. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 22nd June to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer).

Mr. Osborne: Since the position has deteriorated very much since 22nd June.

and in view of the great dangers now facing the country, is the Home Secretary satisfied with the number of volunteers coming forward?

Mr. Ede: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that I said last week that I was not satisfied.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that his campaign for recruits for Civil Defence was badly timed, gave no credit to Civil Defence workers of the last war, and no inspiration for the future; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the improvements which are necessary.

Mr. Ede: I do not accept the implications in the first part of the Question, but I am, naturally, considering, in the light of past experience, how improvements can be effected in any future recruiting drive, with a view to helping local authorities and impressing on the public the importance of building up our Civil Defence organisation.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Home Secretary aware that his Civil Defence department, in a recent circular to Civil Defence committees, has admitted that the campaign was badly timed and put the blame, quite naturally, on the General Election for having upset it? Would not the present international crisis be a good opportunity for starting afresh?

Mr. Ede: As I said last week, I think that the most effective means of increasing the Civil Defence Force is through the efforts of those who have already joined it. I think that one comment in the hon. Member's Question was not justified, because on every occasion when I have spoken on this matter I have paid tribute to the work done by those who helped in the past and have already been recruited.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the help and co-operation he is receiving from the local authorities?

Mr. Ede: On the whole they have, I think, behaved very well.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does not the Home Secretary realise that those recruits, few in number, who have joined are extremely disgruntled because they are not being given any training or anything to


do? Is he aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country, mainly because there is no training equipment?

Mr. Ede: I think that matter is being very rapidly improved.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of Civil Defence committees with his recruiting posters, which compare unfavourably with those issued by the Armed Forces or locally by Civil Defence associations; and whether he will offer prizes for the best posters.

Mr. Ede: I am aware that there has been some criticism of these posters which will be borne in mind when new ones are being prepared. As regards the last part of the Question, I am considering the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the Home Secretary agree that it would be better if posters appealed to patriotism and national needs rather than to the opportunities of meeting the other sex, as the Home Office poster I show here, which has been much criticised, does?

Mr. Ede: One has to appeal to all tastes. I will try to see that as wide a variety of tastes as possible are appealed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Traffic Control

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of policemen employed daily during the three months ending 31st March, 1950, on regulating temporary traffic lights on road repairs or other obstructions; and why this sedentary work need be done by full-trained police officers at a time when they are needed on the beat.

Mr. Ede: During this period the average number of constables engaged daily in the Metropolitan Police district in operating police traffic signals was 16. Police experience of traffic control is necessary for the efficient operation of the signals and more police would have been needed for the manual control of traffic at the points affected if signals had not been used.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that in some parts of London exactly the same sort of traffic light is operated by watchmen, and in view of the fact that the sight of a London policeman on his beat in the suburbs is becoming an increasing rarity, would it not be the right principle to see that the police are used on strictly police duties?

Mr. Ede: It is not the kind of signal apparatus that is in question; it is the site at which the signal is to be operated that determines whether a policeman should or should not be employed there.

Mr. Awbery: Would the Minister give consideration to the establishment of a supernumerary force to concentrate on road traffic work, thereby releasing police to carry out the duties for which they were recruited?

Mr. Ede: The difficulty is that a supernumerary force would not have the same powers as the police.

Disablement Awards

Captain Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the awards for those disabled while serving in the police prior to July, 1948, are considerably lower than the awards paid after that date under the Industrial Injuries Act; and whether he will take steps to remove this anomaly.

Mr. Ede: I agree that cases may arise in which a policeman who was injured before the industrial injuries scheme came into effect might have received more by way of aggregate benefits if that scheme had applied to him. This is inevitable where new benefits are introduced as from a specified date, and I would not feel justified in suggesting that the police should be placed in a specially favoured position in this respect.

Captain Ryder: Is it not true that men in industry are covered by the workmen's compensation Acts and that this does not apply to men in the police? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that a police constable who has a 75 per cent. disability should receive only £36 a year by way of compensation?

Mr. Ede: I am not satisfied with a good many things, but that is a matter which has to be dealt with as part of a general and not a particular problem.

Sir Ronald Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he gives the police equality of benefits with these other cases, he would not be putting them in a privileged position? Or would he?

Captain Ryder: If the home Secretary is not satisfied, may I ask him to consider remedying this anomaly?

Mr. Ede: I am considering what can be done, but it is part of a general question.

Marlborough House (Security)

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional security measures he is taking in view of the recent attack on two members of the staff at Marlborough House.

Mr. Ede: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is in consultation with the Controller to Her Majesty Queen Mary as to suitable measures to prevent any future incident of this kind, and, while certain measures have already been taken, it would not be in the public interest to indicate their nature.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is the Home Secretary aware of the considerable public alarm felt in the country at present at the ease with which a person from Southern Ireland, now in custody in connection with this case, succeeded in getting into Marlborough House and delivering an attack on two elderly and defenceless women? Will he arrange with his colleague, the Minister of Works, to keep a vigilant eye on the Southern Irish who are employed in this part of London?

Mr. Ede: I regret that this Question should have been made the vehicle for any attempt to exacerbate feelings in Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIFLE RANGE, ENFIELD (COMPLAINT)

Mr. Iain MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that ricochets from the Enfield miniature rifle range are causing considerable annoyance to residents in the Slades Hill area of Enfield; and whether he is satisfied that all necessary safety precautions are observed at this range.

Mr. Ede: Complaints that the use of the range involves danger to the public have been received by the police and have been referred for consideration to the military authorities, who issue range safety certificates.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT (SALE)

Mr. Bevins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far it is the practice of his Department to buy certain fire service equipment centrally and to resell it to local authorities at the price paid plus an administration charge.

Mr. Ede: After the transfer of the fire service to local authorities in 1948, temporary arrangements, as described in the Question, covering a wide range of supplies, were made for the convenience of the local authorities. These arrangements have been progressively curtailed and I am at present in consultation with the local authorities as to the extent to which they desire the continuance of such arrangements as are still in force.

Mr. Bevins: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why local authorities should pay an administrative charge to the Home Office when they can buy at cost from the manufacturers?

Mr. Ede: If this scheme is convenient to the local authorities, I see no reason why they should not bear the whole cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID SHELTERS (DEMOLITION)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has ordered that, in general, air-raid shelters in the gardens of houses may not be demolished.

Mr. Ede: The policy of His Majesty's Government, as embodied in the Civil Defence Act, 1948, is to build up our Civil Defence resources, and it would be imprudent and inconsistent with that policy to demolish existing shelters.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Home Secretary consider introducing a little flexibility into the prohibition on demolition of air-raid shelters, as there is a


minority of cases where demolition would not reduce security and would be highly desirable?

Mr. Ede: There is this flexibility, that if the local medical officer of health says a shelter is injurious to the health of the people living in the surrounding property, permission can then be given for demolition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATAPULTS

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the cruelty involved so far as animals and birds are concerned and the frequent accidents to children, he will now consider taking steps to render the use of catapults illegal in this country.

Mr. Ede: I do not think it would be practicable to single out for prohibition this particular method of discharging missiles.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that all -children at all times behave with the dignity and decorum of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman)?

Mr. Ede: I have often wondered, in considering the hon. Member's Questions, how he did behave when he was a boy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL DOCUMENTS

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will authorise the use of National Registration identity cards instead of passports or travel identity cards by travellers to Northern Ireland during the current tourist season.

Mr. Ede: I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member's desire to facilitate travel to Northern Ireland during the tourist season. But standard national registration identity cards bear no photograph or statement of nationality, and for the purpose of controlling the movement of aliens are not an adequate substitute for travel documents.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is the Home Secretary aware that the present requirements are injuriously affecting the tourist

industry in Northern Ireland, and does he not think that an ordinary registration card is sufficient.

Mr. Ede: I regret that people are exposed to this inconvenience, but I do not think that the ordinary registration card would be sufficient for the reasons given in my answer.

Mr. McKibbin: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable resentment among Scotsmen residing in Northern Ireland at having to expend from 3s. 6d. to 5s. on the purchase of photographs for these passports? Is he aware that one such Scotsman informed me that in his case the cost was 25s., and that had he known that, he would have left his family behind and visited Scotland himself?

Mr. Ede: It may very well be that Scotsmen feel more resentment than Englishmen, but this is a very necessary precaution, although I regret it is necessary to continue it.

Mr. William Teeling: Why should pasports be needed for Northern Ireland when they are supposed to be used only for going abroad?

Mr. Ede: Unfortunately, the border of the United Kingdom on one side of Northern Ireland is such that it is necessary to exercise precautions in regard to people who may have infiltrated over it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EQUALISATION GRANTS)

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Health the rateable value per head of population in Liverpool and Birmingham, respectively, for the purpose of equalisation grants; and the amount of such grants paid to those local authorities.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The average rateable values per head of weighted population as defined in Section 3 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1948, are, as provisionally calculated, Liverpool £6.45, Birmingham £5.37. The amount of grant provisionally calculated to be payable to Birmingham in respect of the current financial year is £952,481. Since the rateable value of Liverpool is in excess of the standard rateable value as defined in Section 2 of the Act, no Exchequer equalisation grant is payable.

Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average rateable value is often a very false measure of need? Will he consider representations in special cases such as Liverpool?

Mr. Bevan: The average rateable value is the average weighted rateable value.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Diabetics

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to implement his promise to make available clinitest sets and tablets for diabetics under the National Health Scheme.

Mr. Bevan: I hope to be able to make the necessary amendment to the regulations shortly.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is over two months now since he answered a question on this subject by saying that something would be done immediately? Does he realise that this promise may help to save the lives of some diabetic people who are in danger, and that their patience is becoming exhausted at its non-implementation?

Mr. Bevan: I was anxious not to make a whole series of regulations. If a regulation were made about this, it would stand by itself, and I wanted to accumulate a number of regulations in one Order. That situation has now been reached, and I am doing it shortly.

Higher Nursing Staff (Salaries)

Mr. F. Longden: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the discontent that prevails among the grades of long-service nurses concerning the lagging behind of their rates of income in comparison with the rates being received by nurses in the probationary and shorter service grades; and what steps he will take to produce more equity in the treatment of the different grades of nurses.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 22nd June to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory).

Hospital Beds, Shaftesbury

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the shortage of hospital beds for chronic cases, if he will

reopen Alcester House, Shaftesbury, to relieve the situation in that area.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware that during the last two years 75 per cent. of the interior of this hospital was redecorated, that during the last five years the nurses' quarters were rebuilt, and that it is now in such a condition that 85 beds could be immediately put in there?

Mr. Bevan: This building is not suitable for the purpose. It is old and would cost £50,000 to repair. We do not propose to waste money on that building.

Mr. Crouch: In view of the unsatisfactory reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Medical Practitioners (Mileage Allowance)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will increase the mileage allowance for general medical practitioners in rural areas to compensate for the rise in the cost of petrol.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the rise in the cost of petrol has added appreciably to the expenses of general medical practitioners in country districts; and if he will arrange for an appropriate increase in their mileage allowance.

Mr. Bevan: I am always ready to discuss with the profession any ideas for the better distribution of the total moneys available for general practitioners, but I could not regard the imposition of a new tax as justifying any addition to the total amount.

Dr. Broughton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the help which he gave to the rural practitioner by increasing the mileage allowance a short time ago has now been counteracted by the rise in the cost of petrol?

Mr. Bevan: If every time a new tax was imposed reliefs were given to meet it there would be no revenue from new taxation.

Mr. Baldwin: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give more sympathetic consideration to this matter, which is causing hardship to doctors in scattered rural


areas? May not the result be greater difficulty in getting doctors for scattered areas?

Mr. Bevan: I have not yet observed that the members of the medical profession are deficient in organisations to put forward schemes on their own behalf.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state, in accordance with arrangements promised some time ago, what is now the period of waiting for hearing aids in Manchester.

Mr. Bevan: The period varies from three weeks, according to priority.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health what is the average length of the delay before new applicants without priority can receive hearing aids.

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that I have no general average figure available.

Doctors (Merit Awards)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Health upon what considerations the medical committee of a hospital is expected to make recommendations to the Distinction Awards Committee; what qualities in a doctor are to be regarded as justifying a recommendation for merit money; upon what grounds the medical committee is to grade those recommended for the highest, the second and the lowest rate of merit money; and whether the decisions of the Awards Committee will be published.

Mr. Bevan: A medical committee, like any other body wishing to make a recommendation, will, no doubt, form its own judgment on these matters, and I do not intervene. I have not yet received any recommendations of the Awards Committee, and it is too early to decide about the desirability of publication.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is asking medical committees to express an opinion upon matters about which they know practically nothing, a course which they will find very difficult, although I realise it is a thing which never presents any difficulties to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bevan: There is no need for that supplementary, not the slightest. This is a very competent medical body, which is deciding upon the merits of members of its own profession, and I do not propose to intervene. I will pronounce no judgment whatsoever upon the awards that it makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Site, Claverton

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the City of Bath is proposing to take over the village of Claverton as a building site; and if he will withhold his approval of this proposal until he has satisfied himself that there are no alternative sites available.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The second part does not therefore arise.

Mr. Leather: If this land is not being taken over for houses, surely there is no purpose in taking it at all. If it is being taken for houses will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is first-class agricultural land; that it is the only part of the original plan for a green belt which has not been taken over for other purposes; and that a large number of the citizens of Bath are opposed to this project?

Mr. Bevan: As my information goes at the moment, and I may be wrong, the hon. Member is wasting his emotions upon a false object. The City of Bath is not proposing to include the village of Claverton.

Mr. Leather: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong.

Caravan Dwellers, Uxbridge

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking at the request of the Uxbridge Council for an increased housing allocation for 130 caravan dwellers who are to be evicted from the Swakeleys Estate trailer park.

Mr. Bevan: No such request has been received from the council.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Uxbridge Council


are able and willing to rehouse these 130 men, women and children, whom they propose to evict within the next 10 days?

Mr. Bevan: That is another question. No request has been received from the council.

Bungalows, Essex

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the building. of six bungalows at Feering, Essex, has been delayed by formalities in connection with the transfer of the land from the Feering Parish Council to the Braintree Rural District Council; and if he will expedite the necessary consent.

Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is that the land lies under a restrictive covenant. I am advised that the rural district council cannot acquire it for housing except by compulsory purchase.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the best way of expediting this matter, as the delay is causing great difficulty not only in regard to housing but also in regard to employment?

Mr. Bevan: As the council will have to proceed by way of compulsory purchase Order, and as my office in that matter is of a judicial kind, I cannot pronounce judgment at this stage.

Mr. Driberg: But can my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that there is no delay between Whitehall and his regional office?

Mr. Bevan: I think there is no delay at all; it is the council who must first of all apply for the Order.

Building Licences

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that licence was given by the Cardiff Rural District Council for a new wing to be added to a large house in Lisvane, although two people only are housed in this property, and that the same council granted per mission for the building of stables for four riding horses; and, whether he will take action to prevent this misuse of man power and materials until the housing shortage has been solved.

Mr. Bevan: I have made inquiries of the Cardiff Rural District Council, and it would appear that the first part of the

Question relates to a licence which was granted by the council on 10th October, 1949, to enable a small additional family unit of accommodation to be provided for an aged mother and invalid sister. As regards the second part of the Question, the council state that no such building work has been licensed by them.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now grant licences outside the local authority quota of private enterprise licences for the rebuilding of houses burnt down since the end of the war.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Such cases should be covered by the arrangements for private building licences which I announced on 4th May, and I am always prepared to give special consideration to an exceptional case.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Health if he will give licences to private individuals to build houses in their spare time as a co-operative nonprofit making scheme.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) on the 11th and 25th May respectively, of which I am sending him copies.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the Minister support this suggestion? I have not seen the answers to which he refers me, but will he agree that this is an excellent way of getting extra houses built for the same labour?

Mr. Bevan: It makes the same demand on materials.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that the Rural District Council of Dart-ford have at least 856 families on their housing waiting list, and that local builders have men and building material which is not being used, he will allow that council complete freedom to issue licences for houses up to about £1,400 per house.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The rural district council still have a considerable amount of house building in hand and there is no justification for allowing them to exceed the normal licensing quota.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar conditions to those mentioned in the Question prevail in the area of the Orpington Urban District Council and that, owing to his policy there are many family tragedies? Why is he deliberately stopping the building of houses when men and materials are available?

Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Member aware that the authority have 189 houses under construction and 92 others in approved tender but not yet started, and that the number of building workers in the area are three painters and 14 labourers?

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Health if he will state, in the case of Liverpool, the total number of houses for which he will approve tenders or for which the council may issue licences during the current year.

Mr. Bevan: The outstanding allocation is 1,770 houses, in addition to the 3,417 houses already in hand at 31st December, 1949. I will review the allocation in the light of the progress made by Liverpool.

Mr. Bevins: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with his recent statement that the figure of 1,770 was totally inaccurate? Secondly, may we take it that if Liverpool makes an application for a new allocation it will be sympathetically considered?

Mr. Bevan: Since the war, the Liverpool Corporation have not in one single year built as many houses as we have asked them to do.

Mr. Bevins: That is a complete evasion. My question was whether, if Liverpool applies to the Minister for a further allocation, the application will be sympathetically considered?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member had been listening he would have heard that I said at the end of my reply that I would review the allocation in the light of the progress made by Liverpool.

Mrs. Braddock: Is it not a fact that Liverpool is 811 houses behind its allocation?

Mr. Bevan: As I have already said, Liverpool Corporation have been allotted all the houses they were able to build.

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Health the reason for his requirement that local authorities should not be given the power to transfer building licences if they find that the person to whom they have been granted has failed to exercise them within a reasonable time; and whether he will withdraw this prohibition.

Mr. Bevan: There is no general prohibition of this kind, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have details I will inquire into it.

Completed Houses (Statistics)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Health why there was a drop of 4,500 in the houses completed in April compared with the previous month.

Mr. Bevan: It is impossible to give precise reasons without making detailed inquiries of all local housing authorities. A similar drop has occurred in earlier years. It is possible that local authorities are specially anxious to complete as many houses as possible in March, so that the maximum number of subsidy payments will commence in the financial year then current.

Vacated Houses (Re-letting)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has been able to give further consideration to the possibility of giving local authorities power to control accommodation vacated by residents moving into houses in new towns which are subsidised out of the local authorities' rates;
(2) whether he is prepared to give local authorities power to control the re-letting of houses occupied by old people who can be more suitably housed in newly built old peoples' dwellings.

Mr. Bevan: I do not think that legislation could appropriately be introduced for the purpose suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Albu: is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the purposes of the New Towns Act will be rendered impossible if local authorities are not given some powers of this nature?

Mr. Bevan: No, I hope it will not. We will have a look a the matter again, but it might easily be that people would be loath to transfer themselves into a new town if, immediately on transfer, the houses fell into somebody else's hands.

Truro

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his answer on 17th November, 1949, and the progress made by the Truro Rural District Council towards the completion of their building programme, he will now make an allocation of houses for 1950 to that authority in addition to the eight already allocated.

Mr. Be van: A further allocation would not be justified at present in view of the work still outstanding on 60 houses now under construction and 14 houses approved but not yet started.

Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are still six months to go until the end of 1950? Has he not received information from the council that they are well advanced with their building programme?

Mr. Bevan: They have been allocated houses which have not yet been started. Let them get on with those which have been approved to be built and we will look at the situation again.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Water Supply, Great Houghton

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Health when it is anticipated that a piped water supply will be provided in the village of Great Houghton, Northamptonshire.

Mr. Bevan: I have authorised the immediate starting of work on a scheme put before me last week for giving a temporary supply to the village. A permanent scheme is being considered.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to get the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board, for which he has some responsibility, to provide information of this character, which was asked for so long ago as 21st March?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, I will make inquiries.

Sewerage Schemes, Northamptonshire

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Health the number of sewerage schemes for Northamptonshire which have been deferred on his instructions; the number of parishes affected by such deferment; and the total anticipated cost of the schemes deferred.

Mr. Bevan: It is not possible for nine schemes affecting 13 parishes and entailing an estimated cost of £193,719 to be proceeded with without affecting the progress of other schemes of greater urgency. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that in the county a much greater volume of sewerage work has already been approved and is in progress.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a piped water supply will not arrive before the completion of the sewerage scheme in any of these parishes? Otherwise, great difficulties will ensue?

Mr. Bevan: There is reasonable adjustment in these things, but one has to remember that a water supply is, of course, a first necessity.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Would the Minister consider giving approval to sewerage extension schemes that were started before the war? Is he aware of the position in the City of Peterborough, where £90,000 was spent on beginning a sewerage scheme which, as it has not been approved, cannot be completed?

Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different question. If the hon. Member would put it down I will endeavour to give him a precise reply.

River Pollution (Report)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to implement the report of the River Pollution Prevention Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee; and when legislation may be expected.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on 22nd June.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET SHIP (CHARTER)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will make it a rule that the Foreign Office should always be consulted before any foreign commercial contracts are entered into, which are likely to have adverse political repercussions in foreign countries, such as have arisen as a result of the visit to the Dominican Republic of the Soviet vessel "Dmitri Dorskoy" which was on charter to the Ministry of Food.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Foreign Office is normally consulted by other Departments of His Majesty's Government in matters involving relations with foreign countries. In view of the very large number of commercial transactions which are entered into with foreign interests it must be left to the Department primarily concerned to decide whether and at what stage consultation with the Foreign Office is necessary.
As regards the specific instance quoted by the hon. Member, I would refer him to replies given to his Questions of 22nd May and 19th June by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and my hon. Friend the Foreign Under-Secretary. I would also refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food on 15th May to a Question by the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins).

Mr. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that a point of real substance arises here? Is he aware that, on the one hand, the Foreign Office were saying that they are not interested because this transaction was entered into in London, while, on the other hand, the Ministry of Food said that they are not concerned with political considerations in chartering ships? For all they care this might be a North Korean vessel. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter which should receive attention?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, it would not be a North Korean vessel.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the Prime Minister accept the implication that there were, in fact, adverse political repercussions?

The Prime Minister: I have not noticed any.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will immediately consult with the Dominion Prime Ministers in order to secure their agreement upon the proposal to form an Empire committee on foreign policy.

The Prime Minister: The question of the machinery for consultation between members of the Commonwealth has been frequently discussed at meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and particularly at those held in 1944, 1946 and 1948. The general conclusion reached has been that the existing methods of consultation were satisfactory. In the circumstances, I hardly feel that I myself should be justified in taking up this matter afresh with other Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Turton: Are we to understand from that reply that the Prime Minister has not received a fresh suggestion from the Prime Minister of Australia on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I have received no communication from the Prime Minister of Australia on this subject.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the Prime Minister really say that the existing arangements are satisfactory when, in a matter of prime importance, the recognition of Communist China, the United Kingdom Government have recognised while Australia and New Zealand have not? Is there not a need to look at the whole machinery again.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the nature of the Commonwealth. It has never been suggested that in every matter every Government in the Commonwealth should take precisely the same action. As the hon. Member surely knows, it frequently occurs at meetings of U.N.O. and its committees that there is not absolute agreement. I could never accept the view that it was evidence of lack of consultation because in certain matters Commonwealth Governments take a different view.

Mr. Braine: Does not the Prime Minister's reply mean that he abdicates all responsibility for taking the initiative?

The Prime Minister: I abdicate no responsibility. If any Commonwealth Government wishes to raise this matter it is open for them to do so. I am saying that this matter has been discussed in successive Commonwealth Conferences, when it was generally agreed that no change was desirable. That does not preclude changes in the future. I do not think there is any need to take the initiative in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY (RESEARCH)

Mr. Vosper: asked the Lord President of the Council the results of research in muscular dystrophy achieved during the last 12 months by the Medical Research Council; and whether adequate resources are available.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The main object of the investigations in the Council's neurological research unit during this period has been to find better methods of distinguishing the muscular dystrophies from other diseases which may closely resemble them but require special methods of treatment. I am advised that progress is being made and that the resources are adequate.

Mr. Vosper: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that sufferers from the disease feel that research has not been properly co-ordinated? Will he keep the matter under review?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINERS (SILICOSIS)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Lord President of the Council what publicity has been given to the scheme for preventing silicosis amongst Cornish tin miners.

Mr. H. Morrison: A trial of the value of inhalations of aluminium dust in preventing silicosis in tin miners has been organised by the Medical Research Council, but it will be some years before the results can be assessed. Meanwhile, it would be premature to publicise the scheme as if the treatment were of established benefit.

Mr. Hayman: Is it the case that the results of this valuable experiment will not be announced until sufficient time has elapsed to prove that they are good?

Mr. Morrison: We want to go through with the investigations. As my hon. Friend apprehends, it will take some time before we know what the results are.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Opencast Mining, Worcestershire

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural clearance certificates have yet been issued by his Department in respect of areas and sites in Western Worcestershire, threatened by opencast coal mining activities; and for which sites such clearance certificates have been issued.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Agricultural clearance has been given for the purpose of trial borings only in respect of the following eight sites in Western Worcestershire: Fartown, Stildon, Empire, Winrick, Trial, Gyphouse, Greenway and Gorsthill.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unanimous and fierce opposition has been forthcoming from the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the National Farmers' Union and all the local authorities interested in this matter? Does it not represent a grave dereliction of duty by his Department in regard to agricultural interests?

Mr. Brown: It represents nothing of the kind. These are trial borings. All other considerations will be taken into account if and when the proposals develop.

Women's Land Army (Requisitioned Houses)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many requisitioned houses are to be given up on the disbandment of the Women's Land Army later this year; and how many are being retained for use by Government Departments.

Mr. G. Brown: Of the 36 requisitioned houses being used on 1st June, 1950, to


accommodate members of the W.L.A., 24 were held by my right hon. Friend's Department. Of these, 17 will be derequisitioned, four offered to the Ministry of Health for housing purposes, and three retained for the time being to house agricultural workers. The remaining 12 houses are held by the Ministry of Works. Of these, seven will be vacated by my right hon. Friend's Department, and it will be for the Ministry of Works to decide their subsequent use; three will be retained, and the future of the other two is not yet decided.

County Committees (Report)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to receive the report of the Ryan Committee which is examining the working of the county agricultural executive committees and their relationship with the headquarters office of his Department.

Mr. G. Brown: I am informed that the Committee hopes to be able to report in the early autumn.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister undertake that the Ryan Committee's report will be published, as there is very widespread interest in the problem of the relationships of county committees with Whitehall? Even if the House is not sitting we should like an opportunity of considering the recommendations, with a view to future action.

Mr. Brown: I could not undertake that. This is one of a number of inquiries which are being made and will be made into the organisation of the larger Departments. I understand that it is not the practice to publish such reports.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee was set up as a result of certain recommendations made by the Estimates Committee of this House? Surely it is only right that the report of the Committee should be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Brown: I repeat that there have been other committees like this one and there will be others. It is primarily to advise my right hon. Friend on some questions arising out of the administration of the Department, and it will be for him to decide what to do with the report when he gets it.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Will the Government give further consideration to this point, because a very large number of people are extremely interested in the report? If it is not published we can only assume that it is because the Government desire to hide something.

Mr. Brown: There is no more reason for anybody to assume that than there was in the past, when exactly the same practice was followed. Whether a report is published depends very largely on the type of committee and the subject with which it deals. I am not sure that it would be proper to publish this report, but it is for my right hon. Friend to say.

Experimental Farm, Martyr Worthy

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are his reasons for refusing to publish detailed accounts of the expenditure incurred by his Department in connection with its experimental farms, such as that at Martyr Worthy.

Mr. G. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to him on 22nd June.

Mr. Smithers: Does not the Minister think that the usefulness of the experiments would be increased if we knew how much they cost? Does he not think that the public have a right to know how much of their money is being spent? Is he afraid to publish these accounts?

Mr. Brown: It is rather foolish to talk like that. The cost of acquisition, tenant right valuation, and capital expenditure upon buildings, equipment and stock has already been given to the hon. Gentleman. The cost of experimental work is not useful for the purpose of comparisons with commercial enterprises. If the hon. Member cares to look at the Minister's Estimates, he will find set out in Class VI, Vote 8, the estimated expenditure on our experimental farms.

Mr. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what people in my neighbourhood would like to know is how much is spent on running this farm? There is great dissatisfaction locally.

Mr. Brown: I suspect that quite a number of people are forgetting that this is a farm which carries out experimental


work, and that it is not the sort of thing to be compared with adjacent commercial holdings.

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will exercise his powers under Section 90, subsection (1) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, in such a manner as to ensure that weedkiller sprayed from aircraft upon the Ministry of Agriculture's experimental farm at Martyr Worthy is not in future also sprayed upon private gardens in the vicinity of the farm.

Mr. G. Brown: The spraying referred to was not part of the experimental work but of the ordinary farm work and was carried out by contractors in accordance with common practice in the country. My right hon. Friend's powers under the Section quoted do not enable him to control the methods employed in such work. Owners and occupiers who are affected have such remedies as are provided under the general law.

Mr. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Minister of Agriculture has no right to give instructions as to what shall be done on his Ministry's own farm? Surely that cannot be correct.

Mr. Brown: The work was carried out by contractors who habitually carry out this work in other parts of the country in the same way as they carry it out on any other farm. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that everything is being done in the ordinary way to secure a satisfactory outcome between them and the people affected.

Calves (Ear Marking)

Mr. H. L. D'A. Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union in regard to the possibility of modifying the size of the punch used for marking the ears of calves on which subsidy is paid.

Mr. G. Brown: The National Farmers' Union have made representations of a general nature to the Department on this subject, but they appreciate the difficulty of finding any satisfactory alternative to the present system.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that the National Farmers' Union are not satisfied with the present position, and that

they would like is modified on one of the lines indicated by the Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) a few weeks ago?

Mr. Brown: It is a fact that the N.F.U., like the rest of us, would like to find some other way of doing it, but they recognise, as we do, that there are objections to every alternative method yet suggested.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of calves' ears have been badly damaged by the use of a punch which makes a hole half an inch in diameter? Is he aware that many farmers think that if a punch making a hole ⅜ inch in diameter or a triangle with a ⅜ inch side were used by experienced men the disadvantages found earlier would be removed and that this would be well worth trying?

Mr. Brown: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that as guardians of the taxpayers' purse we have to be careful that the hole will not afterwards be lost or covered. No alternative method has yet been suggested which is not open to that very serious objection.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As pedigree cattle are already marked on the ear with a number, is it not unnecessary to have a large hole as well?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentelman has hit on the great difficulty. The existence of private marks makes it difficult to adopt a small one of our own.

Mr. Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman have experiments made on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane)—a small triangular mark?

Mr. Brown: I cannot undertake to have experiments made, but I am quite willing to consider any alternative suggestions which are made to us.

Land, Claverton

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the report of his Land Commissioner on the agricultural land at Claverton, which it is proposed to take over for housing purposes.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend has no knowledge of a specific proposal to take over agricultural land at Claverton


for housing purposes, and no report has been made by the Land Commissioner on any such proposal.

Mr. Leather: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this land is not being taken for housing there is no point in taking it at all? It is a waste of money. Will he re-assure his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that Claverton comes within the Private Bill?

Wool Marketing Scheme

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now say when the wool marketing scheme will come before the House for approval.

Mr. G. Brown: Subject to the passing of the necessary affirmative resolutions by both Houses of the Northern Ireland Parliament, my right hon. Friend hopes to submit the wool marketing scheme to this House some time next month.

Mr. Hurd: Shall we before then have an opportunity of considering the Commissioner's report, following the public inquiry at Edinburgh?

Mr. Brown: I will bear the point in mind.

Sir T. Dugdale: Why did this scheme go to the Northern Ireland Parliament before this House had an opportunity even to consider it?

Mr. Brown: Because it is a Great Britain scheme, and the drill is for it to go there first so that it may then come before this Parliament.

Mr. Hurd: Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.

Mr. Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The scheme applies to Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman said that we should have an opportunity to consider the report. Shall we be able to consider reports on other wool schemes?

Mr. Brown: What I said was that I would bear in mind the point which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) had made.

Bovine Tuberculosis (Eradication)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a

position to say what are to be the financial arrangements of the scheme for eradication of bovine tuberculosis which is due to begin on 1st October next.

Mr. G. Brown: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that agreement has been reached with representatives of the National Farmers' Unions and Milk Marketing Boards in Great Britain on the basis of a plan for eradicating bovine tuberculosis by areas and on the necessary revision of the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme which, as my right hon. Friend has already announced, will come into operation on 1st October, 1950. With permission I will circulate a statement giving details of this plan in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Our general objective is to stimulate progress in the voluntary eradication of tuberculosis from herds in all parts of the country, and to eliminate tuberculosis entirely from selected areas as they become ripe for such treatment. Since 1944 owners of attested herds have received only the T.T. quality premium of 4d. per gallon of milk sold (if they held a T.T. licence) and there has been no payment for beef or rearing herds.

Under the new arrangements, which are to operate from 1st October next, there will be:

(1) An attestation bonus as a contribution towards the cost of eradicating tuberculosis from the herd. This will be at the rate of 2d. per gallon of milk sold for four years, and 1d. per gallon for a further two years or, at the option of the farmer at £2 per head of cattle for four years and £I per head for two more years.

(2) A continuing quality premium on T.T. milk in recognition of its superior hygienic quality at a minimum of 2d. per gallon from 1st October next until 31st March, 1954. The minimum rates in each subsequent period of two years will be settled biennially from 1952 onwards, any adjustments upwards or downwards in the guaranteed minimum being made in the light of circumstances. The actual rates will be subject to negotiation at the annual February reviews for 1951.

In addition to the above payments the owner of an attested herd in which reactors occur after the end of the fourth year will, provided that he has complied


with the rules of the Scheme, be paid compensation in respect of those reactors. A revised Attested Herds Scheme embodying the above bonus proposals will be made at an early date to come into operation on 1st October next.

The general outline of the area eradication part of the plan, as agreed with producers' representatives, is fairly well known. Some details of the way in which it is to work, and of the areas first to be selected as free-testing and eradication areas are, however, still under discussion, but I hope to make a further announcement in due course. This part of the plan will also come into operation in October. The estimated additional cost of the new proposals as compared with the present arrangements is about £½ million in 1950–51 and just over £1 million in 1951–52.

Rapid progress has been made during the past few years in the eradication of tuberculosis from dairy herds. I feel confident that these proposals will ensure the continuation of that progress and also provide a new stimulus for the owners of other herds, thereby laying the fundation for the final eradication of bovine tuberculosis from Great Britain within a measurable time.

Calf Rearing Subsidy

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will announce the rates of subsidy under the calf rearing scheme on calves born after the end of next September.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland propose, subject to securing the necessary Parliamentary approval, to make an Order under Section 1 (4) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949, fixing a rate of £5 per head for steer calves born after 30th September, 1950, and before 1st October, 1951. It is not proposed to pay subsidy on heifer calves born after 30th September, 1950.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY (POPLAR TREES)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give particulars of the grant to be paid for planting poplar trees; and the reason for this special subsidy.

Mr. G. Brown: The grants are £8 per acre for trees planted in blocks and 2s. per tree for trees planted in lines or avenues. These grants will be paid in equal instalments, the first at planting and the second after five years. The country is almost wholly dependent on imports for its supplies of poplar wood, which is very valuable industrially, and my right hon. Friend hopes that the grants will encourage the planting of poplars on sites which otherwise would not be used.

Mr. Hurd: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the cost of this special grant?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Wrecks (Marking)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that several Essex fishermen, including one from Tollesbury, have recently lost nets and gear on sunken wrecks whose position is not marked by buoys; if he will make good these losses, by grant or compensation; and if, in consultation with the Corporation of Trinity House, he will endeavour to secure the marking of these wrecks by dan buoys and the issuing of corrected charts.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend is aware that losses of this sort are, unfortunately, not infrequent. The sea bed in the Thames Estuary is much obstructed by wreckage of various origins. some of the smaller obstructions being the most damaging, and complaints have been received from Essex fishermen, though not at Tollesbury. It would be impossible to mark every wreck or piece of wreckage by a buoy, and my right hon. Friend is sorry he has no funds from which he could pay compensation or replace lost gear.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that, coming at the end of a rather poor season in one of these smaller fishing places in which fishing has, unfortunately, been a declining industry for some generations, this kind of accident is extremely discouraging to the fishermen? Is there no way in which he could possibly help—for instance, under the excellent Act introduced during the last Parliament by our right hon. Friend?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I think not. I think that probably the best way to proceed is to see whether there are any precise examples of wrecks which are causing more trouble than others. If we are told that there are, we will see if we can do something to remove them.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As the vast majority of these wrecks are the result of enemy sinkings off the Essex coast in 1940 and 1941 should not up-to-date charts have been issued by now?

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend deal with that point, which is a relevant one?

Mr. Brown: I repeat that so far as we can mark and chart these things that has been done. I personally believe—I did not like to say it in case I came in conflict with the views of other people—that the fishermen know where the wrecks are and, on the whole, manage, to avoid them, but if my hon. Friend can suggest that there are some which are causing particular trouble we will certainly see what we can do.

Mr. Driberg: How can my hon. Friend suggest that the fishermen know where the wrecks are when they are losing their nets and gear on them?

Overfishing Convention

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the smaller catches of fish by vessels of under 15 tons in the first quarter of 1950 as compared with the first quarter of 1946, he will take steps to see the Overfishing Convention is ratified.

Mr. G. Brown: The Overfishing Convention was ratified by His Majesty's Government in July, 1946. Repeated invitations to ratify the Convention have been sent to the Governments of Belgium, Iceland and Portugal, and every effort is being made to secure ratification by them.

Mr. Spearman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider once more whether there is anything he can do to help the industry, which is in such a difficult position today?

Mr. Brown: That seems to be a wider question. We are doing all we can to secure the ratification of the Convention.

Mackerel

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will institute an inquiry into the possibility of reviving the mackerel industry.

Mr. G. Brown: Mackerel are regarded as white fish and as such are included in the general examination of the white fish industry on which the Prime Minister has promised to make a statement on 4th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Coal Board (Foreign Currency)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the amounts of foreign currency that have been granted to the National Coal Board since 1st January, 1950, for the purchase of coal abroad.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): None, Sir.

Northern Rhodesia (Loan)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Bank of England objected to the proposed loan by Messrs. Kleinworts to the Government of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Northern Rhodesian Government consulted His Majesty's Government on the credit in question, and we advised Northern Rhodesia that short-term finance of the type proposed was not appropriate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the Minister said that they advised the Northern Rhodesian Government that this was not appropriate, would he give us the reasons? This credit was urgently needed by Northern Rhodesia for six months to finance imports that were self-liquidating, and I think the House should know the reason why His Majesty's Government gave that advice.

Mr. Gaitskell: Because we thought that in the circumstances it was appropriate to have a longer term advance.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that this veto has aroused great indignation—as can be seen in the Press—in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, where people cannot understand why the


City of London should be refused permission to lend money for imports of wheat from Australia to Rhodesia when they are not only allowed, but encouraged, to lend money for manufacturing purposes to France and Austria?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no question of a veto. The Northern Rhodesian Government consulted us and we gave them our opinion on the matter.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that acceptance credits have been encouraged, both by the Bank of England and the Treasury, to finance imports into the Iron Curtain countries, notably Poland and Yugoslavia? Why not our own Empire?

Mr. Gaitskell: Because in this case it was most undesirable to have a credit which might suddenly be withdrawn.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Minister tell us why, if short-term, not long-term credit was desired, His Majesty's Government should take it upon themselves to say that only a long-term credit would receive their approval? Can we have an answer to that?

Mr. Gaitskell: Because His Majesty's Government considered, when their advice was sought on the matter, that a long-term credit would be more appropriate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why?

Mr. Gaitskell: As has already been explained, because it would be unsatisfactory in this case if the credit were suddenly to be withdrawn.

Captain John Crowder: Will the Minister agree that the Colonies are asking for merchant banks to be allowed to help them in their financial problems, and will he encourage them?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not a question of discouragement. This particular form of finance was considered by His Majesty's Government not to be appropriate to these particular circumstances.

Glasgow Corporation (Officials' Salaries)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the salary increases proposed to be made to certain officials of the

Glasgow Corporation, details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Bridgeton.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): With very few exceptions the salaries of senior local government officers do not require the assent of His Majesty's Government. But at the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, immediately after the Budget Statement my right hon. Friends who are concerned with local government affairs drew the attention of the authorities to the views expressed in that statement abut restraint in the matter of personal incomes. They expressed the hope that the principles which the Statement set out would be followed throughout the field of public employment. I am bound to say that my right hon. and learned Friend does not feel that in deciding to make substantial and immediate increases in the salaries of their principal officials the Glasgow Corporation have paid adequate regard to the wide and important considerations of public policy which are involved.

Mr. Carmichael: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, can I take it he recognises that we cannot restrain the workers in the Corporation, some of whom are getting far less in wages than the increases given to the higher-paid officials? As a consequence of that, the higher officials in the Corporation of Glasgow are responsible for initiating discontent, which we have been trying to avoid.

Mr. Jay: I quite agree that the decision of the Corporation was provocative.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the initiative in this matter came from His Majesty's Government in the grossly excessive salaries paid to members of the Coal Board and other public institutions, which are withdrawing officials from the public corporations and making these increases necessary?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my hon. Friend explain why the increases, amounting to as much as £750 a year, should be given when functions have been taken away and responsibilities are so much less by the withdrawal of health services and other functions now taken over by boards?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Financial Secretary look at the scales of salaries paid to officials of boards and other corporations, and see whether he thinks that local authorities can preserve their skilled staff if salaries so greatly in excess are offered by other public bodies?

Mr. Jay: We are discussing here not scales of salaries but increases made in the last few months.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely this is not a case—

Mr. Speaker: Dr. King.

Dental Students (Awards)

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many students entered colleges in 1949 to study dentistry; how many dental scholarships were awarded in that year; and what steps are being taken to increase the number of dental schools at the universities.

Mr. Jay: The intake of dental students in October, 1949, was 613. Awards to students are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and Secretary of State for Scotland, but I understand that their Departments offered 209 new awards in dentistry in 1949. In that year the total number of students holding awards by those Departments was 1,115. Awards to students are also made by local education authorities, but comparable figures of such awards in dentistry are not available. Measures for increasing the supply of dentists are under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the University Grants Committee.

Dr. King: Since the re-direction of this Question has suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for all forms of extraction, will my hon. Friend see that some portion of the money voted to the universities is devoted to increased dental schools at the universities, in view of the great demand for dentists?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly examine that suggestion.

Home-grown Tobacco

Mr. Deedes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent change there has been in the regulations for the

growing, curing and shredding homegrown tobacco.

Mr. Jay: None, Sir.

Dartford and Orpington Councils (Petrol, Price)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the increase in the price of petrol will cost the Dart-ford Rural District Council an extra £715 and the Orpington Urban District Council over £1,000 a year, being the equivalent of a ½d. rate; and what steps he will take to relieve this, and all other local authorities, of this added burden.

Mr. Bevan: I assume that the hon. Member has obtained these figures from the councils concerned. I cannot undertake to protect local authorities from the effect of charges on taxation applying to the community at large.

Sir W. Smithers: At a time when the increase of our export trade is necessary, cannot the Minister do something to reduce the overheads which increase our costs of production and impede or destroy our ability to compete in the markets of the world?

Mr. Bevan: That is irrelevant to the main Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)

Mr. Churchill (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the situation in Korea.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have very little to add to the statements which I have previously made in the House. Hon. Members will probably have learnt by now with gratification that the Australian Government have decided to place Australian naval vessels at present in Far Eastern waters at the disposal of United States authorities on behalf of the Security Council in support of the Republic of Korea. Hon. Members will also have seen the statement of the Australian Prime Minister in support of President Truman's declaration. I have seen Press reports that the Australian Government are not proceeding with the withdrawal of Occupation Forces from Japan until the present emergency is past.
The New Zealand Government have stated their firm support for the action which is being taken by the United States and have offered to make certain naval forces available should they be required.
Hon. Members will already have seen the statement made in the Canadian Parliament yesterday by the Secretary of "State for External Affairs in which he intimated the support of the Canadian Government for the action taken by the Security Council and stated that Canada would be conferring through the United Nations with other members of the United Nations as to what action Canada could and should take.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the Prime Minister state at some convenient but early moment what the Government propose to do on the question of Indo-China, which was referred to by President Truman in his original statement, as the action that may be taken there has so much to do with the defence of Malaya?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member will realise that we are dealing here with a matter of aggression, in which we are acting with the United Nations. The question of Indo-China is a separate one and was dealt with quite separately by the United States spokesman.

Mr. Wyatt: In view of the situation created by events in Korea, would the Government now consider taking the initiative in trying to get an Asiatic pact, on the lines of the Atlantic Pact in Europe, without delay?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that arises out of this question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the supplementary question which was asked a little while ago, would my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that our instructions to our Forces are to act strictly within the limits of the resolution of the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: I think that that has been made perfectly clear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Prime Minister any information about the strength of naval forces under the control of the North Korean Government, and is this display of naval force meant to be useful or is it just a theatrical gesture?

The Prime Minister: I have no information on that.

Mr. George Thomas: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Security Council are in constant session, or is activity being left to the free will of the several Powers concerned.

The Prime Minister: I cannot say whether the Security Council are sitting at this moment, but, of course, they have been sitting and have been dealing with this matter.

Mr. Thomas: Every day?

Mr. James Hudson: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure that the United States are acting within the directions of the Security Council in the steps they are taking, not only in Korea, but elsewhere in the Pacific?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Could the Lord President of the Council inform us whether he is able to make a statement on the course of Business for the coming week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 3RD JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 4TH JULY—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Finance Bill;

Committee stage of the Cinematograph Production (Special Loans) Bill;

Consideration of the Motion to approve the Double Taxation Order (Denmark).

WEDNESDAY, 5TH JULY—Supply (18th Allotted Day), Committee.

Debate on the situation in Korea.

THURSDAY, 6TH JULY—Supply (19th Allotted Day), Committee.

Debate on the position of Engineering Officers (Telecommunications) Association until 7 p.m.; and afterwards, a Debate on Civil Aviation;

Consideration of the Government of India (Family Pensions) Amendment Order;

Motion to approve the Greenwich Hospital Accounts.

FRIDAY, 7TH JULY—The Government will afford an opportunity for the consideration of the Special Reports from the Select Committee on the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms.

Mr. Churchill: I note that on Wednesday the Government desire to have a Debate on the situation in Korea. We should not ourselves have asked for a Debate this coming week, although one will undoubtedly be necessary in the near future; but we are very much at the disposal of the Government in the matter and we are very glad to give them the facilities of our Supply Day if they feel it convenient and necessary to make a statement on this subject and to have a Debate on it on Wednesday next. I do not know whether the Government will take the Debate in such a way that if necessary a Division could be taken. because it seems—and it was found in past experience undesirable—that a Debate on matters of such grave consequence might be largely occupied by handfuls of Members who differed from the general view of the House, and this might give a false impression abroad. However, it is a matter for the Government to consider. We are giving them our support in the handling of this particular question.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say what he has said and I should like to express the appreciation of the Government for the co-operation that has been forthcoming from the Opposition in order to make the necessary adjustments so that this Debate could take place. I think that on the whole it would be best if the Debate were taken on Supply, and, of course, we shall put down the necessary Vote. That makes it. possible, if anybody wishes to take a Division, to challenge the action of the Government; they could do so, although naturally I should much prefer that the House should feel in a position to be unanimous about it.

Mr. Churchill: It is, of course, understood that the Government will open with a statement on this day, although it is one of our Supply Days, and we think that that would be in accordance with general convenience.

Mr. Morrison: I think that in the circumstances that is a quite proper and reasonable request.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whilst the Opposition might not wish to have a Debate on Korea next week, there are several of us who are supporting the Government who would press for such a Debate?

Mr. Morrison: That is a little ungracious. There is going to be a Debate, partly because the Opposition have been co-operative in enabling both the Government and themselves to provide the necessary facilities. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend should be appreciative of what has taken place.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the Lord President when time will be given for the consideration of the legislation which is required on the question of salmon poaching in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: The response to the request of many Scottish Members on both sides on this particular form of private enterprise is under consideration. I am not in a position to say anything firm about it this afternoon.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say what prospect he foresees of a two- or three-day Colonial Debate before we go into Summer Recess?

Mr. Morrison: That sounds to me a rather extreme and exciting request, which I am not able to answer in the affirmative.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Reverting to a previous question, are we to understand that on Wednesday next there is a possibility of a Motion which is agreed between the Government and the Opposition being put down on the Order Paper, and if so will my right hon. Friend make arrangements that the Whips are not put on at the end of the Debate?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend seems to be making a case for me to co-operate in the development of a chaotic situation. I have said that probably it had better be taken on Supply and, if that is so, there is no question of a Motion and I do not think my hon. Friend need be awake at nights in the meantime.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the form of the Debate on Friday on the Kitchen Committee's Reports? Will it be on a Government Motion, or on the Adjournment?

Mr. Morrison: Well, we shall have to think about that. It is a somewhat unusual issue and we shall have to think about it, if necessary, another announcement will be made

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Seeing that the Debate is to be on the activities of the Kitchen Committee, would it not be an occasion for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) to raise the question of salmon poaching?

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Debate on Korea has to be confined within certain narrow limits which may be imposed upon us from hon. Members opposite, or will it range over a sufficiently wide field to allow expressions of opinion in regard to solutions that may not be too popular?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. It is not for me to give Rulings about the scope of Debates.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, it is not a matter for mc. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I understand that Votes will be put down and, within the limits of these Votes, the discussion will be open—within the limits of those Votes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the interest in the question of the atom bomb in relation to Korea, would the Leader of the House consider giving time for consideration of the Motion in the names of the hon. Members for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) and myself?

[That this House deplores the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, that the Prime Minister should advise his representatives in the United Nations to ask for the use of the atomic bomb upon the capital of North Korea, and welcomes the statement issued by the leaders of the Opposition that this suggestion "did not in any way represent the views of His Majesty's Opposition."

In view of this declaration and realising that the use of the atom bomb, not only on the capital of North Korea but on all capital cities and populous areas, cannot be justified either on grounds of humanity or for reasons of expediency urges His Majesty's Government to instruct its representatives at the United Nations to make new proposals for banning the atom bomb.]

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not, Sir.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of what you said, Sir, about the limits of Debate on a Supply Vote, of course there are some limits though they may not be very narrow limits. Would my right hon. Friend consider whether the procedure we followed so frequently during the war on many occasions of moving the Adjournment of the House could be used, so as to allow the Debate to be as wide as possible, rather than on a Vote, where there may be some embarrassing limitation?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that would meet the situation on Supply. I do not know, but I should not think it would make much difference on the limits, whether it was on Adjournment or Supply. In any case, there is no question of legislation being involved and that is the main difficulty that arises on these matters.

Sir Ian Fraser: What Department of State is to be chosen for this Supply Day?

Mr. Morrison: We will look up the appropriate Votes, but, on the face of it, I should think the appropriate Vote would be the Foreign Office.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any possibility of debating the First Report of the British Electricity Authority, as we have not had a Debate on the electricity industry since it was nationalised?

Mr. Morrison: Some discussions will go on through the usual channels. It is. possible that that may emerge.

MEMBER FOR BELFAST, WEST

3.44 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, representing that the Select Committee of this House appointed to consider whether the election of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway to this Parliament as Member for Belfast West, is void by reason of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, have reported that they have heard evidence from various authorities and considered the memoranda laid before them, but that they felt that the arguments on both sides of the question were evenly balanced and that they were unable to arrive at a unanimous decision on their merits; and praying that His Majesty will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing and consideration the question of law, whether the provisions of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, so far as they apply to persons ordained to the office of priest or deacon disable from sitting and voting in this House only persons ordained to the office of priest or deacon in the Church of England as by law established, or whether they also disable from so sitting and voting other and, if so, what persons ordained to those offices and in particular whether, by reason of the fact that the said James Godfrey MacManaway has been ordained as a priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland he is disabled from sitting and voting in this House, in order that the said Judicial Committee may, after hearing argument on both sides (if necessary), advise His Majesty thereon; and further praying that His Majesty, upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee, will be pleased to communicate such advice to this House, in order that this House may take such action as seems to it proper in the circumstances.
It will be remembered by the House that last week there was an interchange between the Leader of the Opposition and myself and -his Motion with regard to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) is put down as a consequence. I think there was a disposition towards general agreement that, as the hon. Gentleman has taken his seat, the best and most expeditious way of resolving the legal argument, as far as we can see, would be to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for which there is a precedent. I hope very much that in the spirit of the interchange of last Thursday the House will be so good as to agree to the Motion.

3.45 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members in

all parts of the House if the Attorney-General would help the House on two points. The first is that we are departing from the recommendations of a Select Committee who considered this matter and reported, suggesting legislation. Therefore, I think everyone would like to know what is in the mind of the Government as to the difficulties which have prevented them taking that course.
The second point is the question of time. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to give us an assurance that the Government will do their utmost—of course it is a matter for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—to see that the matter comes before the Judicial Committee before the end of July. They are not overburdened with work at the moment and I think that if the Government were to point out the urgency of the matter, we might get the question disposed of by an early date. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help us on those points.

3.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Perhaps I might just say a word as to the difficulties which led the Government to conclude that the practical solution of this matter at the moment would be to seek the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to what the law about it all really is. If the matter could have been dealt with, as the Select Committee were inclined to think, by the simple device of a Bill declaring that the hon. Member who now sits for Belfast, West (Reverend J. G. MacManaway) was qualified in law so to do, that of course would be a very easy and attractive course to take. But it really did not appear to us that the problem was quite so simple as that.
If we introduced legislation on those lines the question would at once arise—just to take one of the anomalies-should a clergyman of the Irish Church, such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West, be qualified to sit in this House, notwithstanding that he might hold, as he would be legally qualified to hold, a living in the English Established Church, whilst a clergyman of the English Established Church, although not holding a living at all, would be disqualified? Should the disqualification of priests of the Roman Catholic Church be maintained and the disqualification on clergy


of the Established Church be varied, or not?
Those were the sort of problems which would be raised and obviously these matters, though of an entirely non-political character, are matters on which hon. Members on both sides of the House would hold different views which would require the most careful consideration. We thought in those circumstances that the opinion of the Privy Council might provide the practical solution without necessitating, perhaps, any general review of the law in regard to these problems. In any event, as a broad proposition, it seemed to us desirable to ascertain what the law really was before we started to alter it and, in those circumstances, I hope the House will feel able to agree, at all events as a first measure, to obtain the advice of the Judicial Committee.
We would hope, although I cannot bind the Committee at all, that that advice might be obtained perhaps this term, or, at all events, before Parliament again meets after the end of the Summer Recess; and if the House decides that the matter should be referred to the Privy Council, I would take adequate steps to see that all points of view, including that of the hon. Gentleman who sits for Belfast, West, were represented.
I propose, the House might wish to know, to appear myself to put forward, as objectively as I can, what I think to be the true view of the law; to ask the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), who has made a particular study of this problem, to appear with me in order that the arguments he presented on behalf of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, should be presented to the Privy Council; to nominate some distinguished ecclesiastical lawyer to lead the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to put the opposite point of view; and, if necessary, to give the hon. Member for Belfast, West, the opportunity of himself being represented, although, as to that, it is perhaps undesirable to overload these cases with lawyers and it may well be that, on reflection, he would consider that his position was adequately represented by the course I have indicated.
In those circumstances I hope that the House will think that we are, without any kind of disrespect to the views of the Committee, taking what is perhaps a practical course, having regard to the fact

that the hon. Member is unfortunately prevented by illness from being with us at present.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can the Attorney-General tell the House what precedents there are for this House inviting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to give an advisory opinion?

The Attorney-General: There are precedents. The last one which is directly in point, which concerned the qualifications of an hon. Member of this House, occurred in 1913, and related to Sir Stuart Samuel. That matter was referred to the Judicial Committee, which gave advice to the House upon it.

3.51 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I should like to say a word on this Motion on behalf of the Ulster Members of whom the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway), is one. We should have preferred the recommendation of the Select Committee to have been carried out, namely that the Government should introduce immediately legislation to clarify the position of the hon. Member. It seems rather odd that the Government should have set up a Select Committee, and that when that Committee has reported and made a definite recommendation, we should now seem to be re-trying the whole matter. One of the points which the Select Committee definitely turned down was a suggestion that the matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I quite appreciate what the Attorney-General says about the possible un-desirability at this stage of introducing comprehensive legislation dealing with the whole matter of clergy sitting in this House. I should have thought that it would have been perfectly possible, however, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee and to have introduced a one-clause Bill putting the clergy of the Church of Ireland in the same position as the clergy of the Church of England under the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870. Under that Act, if a clergyman of the Church of England resigns his preferment he can sit in the House of Commons. Many hon. Members here, including myself, knew very well in the last Parliament but one


Sir Edmund Brocklebank, who sat for 20 years in this House, and who was a retired clergyman of the Church of England.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West told the Select Committee that he had relinquished his position as a clergyman of the Church of Ireland in so far as he could do so. Therefore, it seems to me that if we could amend the Act of 1870, so as to allow clergy of the Church of Ireland, if they resigned, as the hon. Member has done, to sit in this House, as a clergyman of the Church of England like Sir Edmund Brocklebank can do and has done, that would deal with the matter quite simply and expeditiously. I feel that this matter is to a certain extent an academic one. My hon. Friend has, after all, taken his seat. Whether he will be challenged or not I do not know. I and those for whom I speak would certainly not contemplate dividing the House or taking any strong action about this matter, but I feel that the House having set up a Select Committee, which made a specific report, the appropriate course for the Government would have been to have accepted that report and brought in a simple Bill, such as I have suggested.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Donnelly: Perhaps the House will allow me to intervene as I have had the unusual experience of taking part in an Irish election, where circumstances are slightly different from those which prevail here. In Northern Ireland, the position of a clergyman in politics is very different from what it is in this country. For example, no clergyman of any religious denomination may sit on a local authority of any kind in Northern Ireland. When the 19th century Acts were repealed by this House in 1926, the action taken related to this country only. The Northern Ireland Government declined to do the same, so that it might be a little discourteous of us to create this rather anomalous position of allowing a clergyman from Northern Ireland to sit in this House, whereas he would not be in a position to sit on any local authority in Northern Ireland. It might be a little discourteous to the Government of Northern Irelnad, who obviously do not wish this kind of thing to happen.

3.57 p.m.

Captain Waterhouse: I am afraid that I cannot share the general accord on the Government's recent attitude. Least of all can I agree with the Attorney-General when he says that this is the best and most expeditious method that can be adopted. We have now reached the last day of June. This House assembled in the first week of March. Four months have gone by and absolutely nothing has been done. If the Attorney-General takes the view which he expressed before the Select Committee, of which I was a member, why did the Government not adopt it then? Why was the matter not referred to the Privy Council at that time instead of to a Select Committee?
I submit that the Government have been wrong. They have misunderstood this affair from the start up to the present. In this Motion for an Humble Address they have incompletely stated the case as it stands. They have made it appear as if the Committee merely said that they could not come to a decision. We said that we could not come to a decision on law but we put forward a direct recommendation as to the course which the Government ought to adopt. We said that legislation was necessary. Nothing of that appears in this Motion.
The Lord President of the Council said the matter was one on which the lawyers could not decide. But surely the lawyers have to a very large extent decided? Both Law Officers of the Crown have taken the view, "nicely balanced," to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, which on balance came down a certain way. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who was Attorney-General in a previous Government, took precisely the same view. If we turn to a representative of the party below the Gangway we have a view expressed there also. The rhetorical question has been asked on many platforms throughout the country "What did Gladstone say in 1869?" I do not know that any answer to that question has ever been produced, but there is an answer applicable to the matter now before us, because in 1869 Gladstone spoke quite clearly on this particular matter.
He said:
My learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor-General advise me that, according to their view, sustained, no doubt, by the


existence of that Clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, the provision contained in the Act passed in the case of Home Tooke"—
that is the 1801 Act which we are discussing here—
would not be understood to exclude from Parliament clergymen other than those of the Established Church.
He went on to say:
If that be so, the state of the law is one of anomaly and confusion still greater than I had supposed, and certainly it ought to receive the early attention of Parliament.
Eighty years have gone by since then, and this is, so far as I know, the first time that this issue has been raised as a practical one. Therefore, it is not too much to expect the Government to be able to come to a proper and immediate decision. I submit in all earnestness that by taking the action which they have done the Government have been discourteous to the Select Committee and have offered a direct affront to this House, which appointed this Committee and to which the Committee made recommendations.

4.0p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), was a little unfair and a little ungenerous in complaining that the Government had handled this matter unreasonably or wrongly. I do not know whether what the Government have done is right or wrong, but I do know that it was done with the general consent of both sides of this House; and if anything wrong did take place it would be quite wrong to place the responsibility for it on the Government. It seems to me that there is one way in which this matter ought not to be settled, with a state of law which at best can only be described as being very doubtful, and that is that the gentleman concerned should seek to jump the decision by merely coming along, and taking the oath, and going on sitting while everybody knows that the law is very doubtful indeed. Whether we ought to have done it earlier or not, we are taking the right course now in getting a proper judicial opinion.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I can well believe that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who has just intervened and used the offensive expression, "jumped the decision," would

be quite content to support any method by which a constituency of 80,000 people should be disenfranchised if he incurred any risk of having a vote given against his in the Division Lobby. But the Government have not taken that view. I think we owe a great debt to the Select Committee who sat so long on this matter and laboured hard with all the tangles and almost metaphysical points involved in the discussion. I should have been glad if, when their report had been presented to the House, the Government had said, "Very well then, we will legislate." But they did not do so. and they have the power.
That being so, I had the feeling, in view of the fact that the hon. Member concerned had taken the oath and presented himself in the House, that the question of emergency in his case no longer arose. It could not be said any longer that an appeal to the Privy Council had the effect of prolonging the disenfranchisement of an important constituency; because he had already taken his seat, and faced the possibility of the penalties which I think legal opinions on both sides show do not expose him to very great risk at the present time. The Government therefore did not encounter any opposition from us in suggesting that it should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; although that had definitely, and I think quite rightly, been turned down, if it was to exercise merely a delaying effect. by the Select Committee.
The Government having said they wish it to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Attorney-General having spoken on this point in a way which shows that His Majesty's Government and he, as their principal legal representative, desire only objective treatment of the subject; and as there is no question of the prolongation of the disenfrancisement of the constituency, I do not myself see why we should object to the solution now proposed, it being clearly understood that we are in no way reflecting on the decision of our Select Committee who we consider served the House very well and faithfully, and with exceptional acumen upon this subject.
The only thing I would venture to say is that if we fall in with the views of the Government on this I think it ought to be understood that they will legislate in the


sense of, or be guided by the report of the Judicial Committee, and that processes of delay will not be invoked to prolong the present uncertainty. I can well conceive that a Bill might be shrewdly drawn which would have an easy passage through the House, and remove what on every side is thought to be a lamentable and, from some points of view, a wholly unjustifiable state of uncertainty.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The speeches of the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) both indicate the difficulties in determining the legal issue, and I do not believe that is the solution at all. We may take one view of the Act of 1801, or we may take the opposite view. We may say that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacMana-way) was entitled to take his seat or that he was not. The Select Committee made no decision upon that point at all. The point before the House at the moment is whether this should go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for decision without expressing any view on the position of the law.
What can the Judicial Committee decide? They can decide that the hon. Member is entitled by the law as it stands to take his seat. If they decide in that form, then very serious anomalies will result. If they come down on the other side and say that he cannot take his seat, equally serious anomalies of a different kind will result. So the Government will be left in the position that it cannot leave the law as it stands, whatever the findings of the Privy Council may be. The matter should be referred to the Privy Council with a request to them to give an indication of what form amending legislation should take. The decision is the responsibility of the Government and it is a decision which I think they should accept. Nothing is to be gained by sending it to the Privy Council because no decision can be taken without Government legislation.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I should not have intervened in this Debate, as I was Chairman of the Select Committee. But two of my colleagues have already spoken and therefore I wish to appeal to the

House to support the Government in this Motion, as indeed the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated—as I understood him—in the remarks he just made. There were some members of the Select Committee who would have preferred the action which the Government now advise this House to take. But in order to obtain unanimity, as we got it on one point which may eventually emerge if the decision of the Judicial Committee is given, we said quite clearly that on the legal issue it was impossible to give the House a clear and definite guide.
The Government are to try to get what I understand to be probably the highest, and if not the highest one of the most important legal authorities, to express a view. When that is given, I think it will be much easier for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee and to introduce legislation. I would go further and suggest that, after that decision is given, it may be easier for the Government to make up their minds what sort of legislation to introduce into this House that will meet, if not the unanimous opinion, then the majority opinion of this House as to the course which should be taken for the future.

4.10 p.m.

Professor Savory: I have great pleasure in supporting the view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Sir H. O'Neill) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse). I cannot help thinking that the Government—with all respect—are making a very great mistake in this matter. Though I had not the privilege of being a member of the Committee, I did hear the whole of the evidence, and no one who read the memorandum of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and listened to the very severe cross-examination to which he was subjected, could help being convinced as to the nature of the law.
The three eminent lawyers who gave their opinion—the present Attorney-General, the ex-Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage)—were unanimous in stating that the law did permit the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Reverend J. G. MacManaway) to take his seat. I admit


that the Attorney-General showed a certain amount of hesitation and balancing, but he did come down—and I heard him—very definitely on the side of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, being entitled to take his seat.
Surely, the matter is very simple. Before the Act of Union of 1800, the Church of Ireland was absolutely independent, but by that Act the Churches of Ireland and of England were united. Section 5 of the Act of Union clearly laid down what was said to be an essential and fundamental part of the union, and that was the preservation of that Church. The Coronation Oath was altered and Queen Victoria herself took the oath for the preservation of the Irish Church.
If, then, Mr. Gladstone, in 1869, by a purely unilateral decision without the con sent of that Church, which was a party to the Act of Union, deliberately disestablished and disendowed that Church, moved as his greatest friend the Bishop of Oxford said, by his restlessness at being out of office and his desire of get ting back into power; if he disestablished and disendowed that Church, depriving it of the greater part of its property, even forcing the parishes to buy back the rectories and the dioceses to buy back the Bishops' Palaces—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and what Mr. Gladstone did in 1869 is just a little far away from the Motion under discussion.

Professor Savory: My point is that from the moment when that Church was disestablished, then as it ceased to be a State Church, the State no longer had any control whatever over it and, therefore, its clergy were free to become Members of this House in exactly the same way as the clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church. That was a State Church during the reigns of Charles I, Charles II and James II, but from the Revolution of 1688 onwards the Scottish Episcopal Church was no longer a State Church. Its clergy, though episcopally ordained, have a perfect right to sit in this House.
I contend that the position in the disestablished and disendowed Church of Ireland is exactly the same as that in the disestablished Scottish Episcopal Church, and that the hon. Member has an absolute right to take his seat. Hon. Members

can read through the Report in which there are a great many details. There is a great deal of hair-splitting. The right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East, put his finger on the real point. Mr. Gladstone consulted the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and he accepted their view that once the Church of Ireland was disestablished then this disability imposed upon its clergy would no longer apply and, therefore, he did not introduce any Clause to that effect. Such a Clause was unnecessary. It was necessary in the Act of 1914 which disestablished the Welsh Church. In that case a special Clause was inserted exempting the clergy from this disability. But Mr. Gladstone was advised by the great legal authorities of the day—and there were giants in those days—that this disability would cease to exist with the disestablishment of the Church.
I deeply regret that the Government did not take the unanimous advice of their own Committee and introduce immediate legislation. A simple one-Clause Bill which would have said that from 1871, from the date when the disestablishment of the Irish church took effect, clergy of the Church of Ireland were no longer debarred and were entitled to take a seat in this House, would have been sufficient. That was what the Select Committee wanted. They asked for a clarification of the law. A one-Clause Bill of this kind would have clarified the law. It would have made the law absolutely clear and would have prevented all the delay which must necessarily be involved.
In spite of the noble efforts of the Attorney-General, and his most generous promises, there will be delay. We have had experience before of judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There will be delay and, during the whole of that period, the hon. Member for Belfast, West, will be kept on tenterhooks as to what the law is. I join with my colleagues in deeply regretting the decision of His Majesty's Government on this Question.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope that the House might possibly be good enough to come to a conclusion on a matter which really is not of the great, stupendous and controversial difficulty which the hon.


Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) would lead us to believe. I have a great regard for the hon. Gentleman. We all have an affection for him, but it is a great pity that, now and again, when we are getting on fairly nicely, he comes in with a great historic harangue raising all sorts of controversies about the future which fill me with terror in case friction is going to break out, though I know that that is the last thing he wishes to happen. He took us back to Mr. Gladstone at some distant date. I gather that Sir Robert Peel had a directly opposite view. Therefore, not all were agreed The hon. Gentleman stressed the point that the Church of Ireland is not an established church, but neither is the Roman Catholic Church an established church.
I would say that we were not bursting to get into legislation, because when one starts with legislation in this field one does not know where one will finish. The hon. Member referred to a simple one-Clause Bill. I never knew an hon. Member urge legislation who did not urge that it could be done with a simple one-Clause Bill. To be frank, I have often had some of my ministerial colleagues assure me that a Bill will be a little one and non-controversial. Sometimes it comes off: sometimes it does not.

Mr. Churchill: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say a few words in the sense that the Government would be prima facie predisposed to legislate to clear up this difficult point.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Churchill: We have been trying to help.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree, and I was about to say that, on the Select Committee's Report, I would join with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the Select Committee, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger)—

Mr. Churchill: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: —for their painstaking and competent work on a situation which is exceedingly difficult. They did recommend that we should proceed

with legislation. Meantime, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) takes his seat in the House, which he was entitled to do, taking all the inevitable possible risks in the process, but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the situation is somewhat changed.
We think that the House would be wise to agree that this matter should go to the Judicial Committee for an advisory legal opinion. The situation is that there is some uncertainty as to what is the state of the law, because, even if three distinguished lawyers from three political parties agree, that would not indicate what the law actually is. It would mean that there is an opinion of some weight, though all three may hold that opinion for different reasons, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said. They might even be inconsistent reasons, though they led to the same conclusion. We therefore think that it is best to get an advisory opinion from the Judicial Committee, which is not a decisive court of law on this matter but which has great authoritative effect.
If and when we get that opinion, which we hope will not be long delayed—and I know that every step will be taken to get this matter considered as early as possible, and that all help will be given to the Judicial Committee in their work—when we get that opinion of the Committee, it may be—I do not know—that it will urge and advise us that the hon. Gentleman is qualified and entitled to take his seat. If that be so, the Government will accept that opinion. If, by any subsequent legal proceedings, the hon. Gentleman should get into trouble, then I quite agree that the Government, after accepting that opinion, must then face the question of legislation of some sort, if only to indemnify the hon. Member, but, of course, it might be other legislation.
The House will not expect me to commit myself as to what legislation it might be in these circumstances. I quite agree that, if the Judicial Committee gives the opinion that the hon. Member is entitled to sit, and if, subsequently, in the courts it is ruled otherwise, another situation would arise which it would be the responsibility of the Government to face it and to take what is considered to be the proper action in the circumstances.
In the circumstances, while I appreciate the valuable work of the Select Committee, there is a somewhat different situation now, and I trust that the House will be able to agree to this course, which I think is probably the wisest and most expedient in the circumstances.

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not the intention of the Government to deal with the anomalies in any case, or are they content to leave the anomalies as they are?

Mr. Morrison: I shall be content if we can settle this problem. I should be very happy to go further, but, quite frankly, I am not ready to walk into the whole field of these religious issues which may involve the Government and the House in more difficulties. All I am saying is that we have got to solve this problem.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Nally: It would be absolutely intolerable if, at this stage of the argument, the Government were to be placed on the defensive. I am surprised at my right hon. and learned Friend and cannot see his justification for this proposal. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, in his desire to get agreement and in order to push ahead with our arrangements for today, should be so easy and so simple in an endeavour to placate the Opposition, not because he has any regard for what they said, but in order to further our Parliamentary procedure. Equally, I resented the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) of being offensive. Usually, I find myself on the opposite side to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, but I should not have thought that it lay in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition to accuse my hon. Friend of being offensive. My hon. Friend put forward a perfectly reasonable point.
What we are concerned with is a matter that involves legal precedents and legal decisions, stretching away back, on which no Government, irrespective of its political complexion, has ever been able to make up its mind. Because the case of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) has a special significance, it is not for the Opposition to lay down that this case be dealt with by

means of a simple Bill. It has already been demonstrated by an hon. Member who is no longer in his place that there are in Northern Ireland Catholic priests not entitled to take seats on a county council, but I should be out of order if I attempted to argue that point.
I am arguing that, if a Bill is being. introduced—and it may be a good Bill or a bad Bill—to make perfectly clear that the hon. Member whose case we are discussing is entitled to sit in this House, and a majority of those who are supporting that Bill are saying how much better it would have been if they had tackled this job before, we are entitled to ask the main sponsors of that Bill what they pro pose to do about clergymen of another denomination who want to sit in the con stituencies now held by the three hon. Members who have just spoken, and if a particular clergyman, a Catholic priest in this case, cannot take his seat on a county council instead of being prohibited by a law which three of the hon. Gentle men opposite—

Professor Savory: English law, or British law, not Irish law.

Mr. Nally: That was in the days when Northern Ireland landowners made the laws of Britain as well as their own. I am not interested in whose law it is; all I say is that that is the law. The law in Northern Ireland has the effect which I have stated.
Let me say this in conclusion. We have had Bills introduced into this House since 1945 to relieve certain hon. Members who sit on this side of the House and who happened to occupy certain posts. They were members of Ministry of Labour tribunals and other tribunals, receiving no pay whatever. They just happened to be members of these tribunals, and an enabling Bill was introduced in this House to permit them to take their seats. The Debate was prolonged almost into the early hours of the morning by hon. Members opposite who were engaged in pointing out what a dreadful thing it was that the Government, simply because the hon. Members concerned had served on Ministry of Labour tribunals in 1945—

Mr. Speaker: That really has nothing to do with this Motion. What happened in the last Parliament is quite outside the scope of this discussion.

Mr. Nally: I am trying to point out that, in this case, when we are dealing with an hon. Member who might have been debarred, all the eloquence and legal skill now being employed to suggest that this problem could be solved by a short and simple Measure was directed to preventing that kind of action in the earlier case.
The Government are quite right in suggesting this course, and will no doubt produce a Bill after reference of the point to the Judicial Committee, but, unless that Bill makes provision for every clergyman, irrespective of faith, to sit in this House and also to take part in local government procedure, my hon. Friends and I will guarantee to put down more Amendments to that Bill than were put down by hon. Members opposite to the Iron and Steel Bill.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: May I ask the Leader of the House one question? He said that, if the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was in favour of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) taking his seat, and then an informer brought proceedings, the Government would bring in legislation to meet the case. What I want to ask is this. Suppose the other alternative takes place and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council finds that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, is not qualified to take his seat. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in such a case, legislation would be introduced as recommended by the Judicial Committee?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot go further than to say that we, having urged that the matter should go to the Privy Council, if the Council expressed an opinion to the effect—which, I gather, is being speculatively put forward at the moment—that he was disqualified, then I think there would be an obligation on the Government to

indemnify the hon. Member for the past disqualification and bring in legislation to that effect, but I would not be in a position to say what legislation, if any, we could bring in to rectify the law in that case.

Earl Winterton: I think the answer is a very clear one. In order to protect the rights of the House, may I raise this point? Presumably, there would be nothing to prevent any hon. Member, if he so desired, bringing in a short Bill of one Clause of the character referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to put the matter right. In other words, the fact that the matter is referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in no way takes away the right of this House to legislate. That is an important point.
the moment, and, therefore, the right hon.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is that no Private Member can introduce a Bill at the moment, and, therefore, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Sir H. O'Neill) could not introduce such a Bill. There is no Private Members' legislation at the moment.

Earl Winterton: If I may respectfully say so, Sir, that does not quite answer my point. There might be circumstances in which there was Private Members' legislation in the new Session of Parliament. I was only seeking to protect the interests of this House. This House has the right to legislate, whatever is going on in the Privy Council.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, if Private Bills are allowed, then Private Members could bring in such a Bill, but how far it would get in the time available would remain to be seen.

Question put, and agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUC TION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.33 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
After the discussion we have just had about innocent and uncontroversial one-Clause Bills, I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill providing an additional £1 million for the National Film Finance Corporation. The first Report of the National Film Finance Corporation, which we shall be discussing later this afternoon, shows clearly how much the Corporation has achieved in its first year of operation. I do not propose at this stage to go into the details of its achievements, as we shall be discussing them in the later Debate, but there are two main things arising out of that report which are relevant to the consideration of the Bill before the House.
The first is, as the Report says and as the whole House is aware, that many films have been produced which could not have been made had it not been for the existence of the National Film Finance Corporation. Including those films associated with the British Lion Company, some 63 films have been made, or are being made, which probably would not have been made but for the Corporation. These include, as the House well knows, films of very great value and prestige for this country.
The second main point I want to make is, as the Report also shows—I hope to discuss this in more detail later this evening—that the Corporation has done a great deal to improve the standards of commercial costing and budgetary control in the industry, and to improve its accounting practice. The Corporation, of course, is by no means satisfied with what has been done in this direction, and it could not hope to achieve miracles in the course of a single year, but I am sure the House will agree that what has been done already is a very important development.
When the National Film Finance Corporation was set up, I described the

need for it as "a regrettable necessity," and the need for an extension of its finances is, by the same token, also a regrettable necessity. I had hoped originally that the £5 million would have been enough to enable the industry to get afloat once again, and to meet its financial requirements through normal channels, although I do not think that any of us felt any great confidence that that would be the course of events. I hope that the various measures which the Government are now taking and which the industry must take—I shall have something to say about that later—will help in the process of getting the industry once again financially afloat. But it is quite clear that there is a need to go further and to provide the Corporation with an additional sum of money if the industry is not to get into worse troubles while the results of the actions of the Government and the industry are making themselves felt.
The amount proposed in this Bill is a small one—much smaller than the original figure. I do not say that it will be enough. But it will be enough, I think, to enable the activities of the Corporation to proceed on an undimished scale, and to give time to see the effect of the other measures taken by the Government and the industry regarding the industry's finances. In coming to this House for a further sum of money, I am fortified by what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said in a somewhat different context when we were debating the Export Guarantees Bill on 2nd February, 1949. He referred to complaints which he had received about my coming to the House rather often for additional sums of money. He said:
He will get no criticism from me on that score. I much prefer Ministers to come back to Parliament frequently for these sums and to give us an opportunity of debating the objects for which they are to be used, rather than to go into the painful over-frequent process of taking powers and getting sums voted which are sufficient in all contingencies and in all circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1689.]
As I say, we began with £5 million, but for the reasons I have mentioned it is essential to have a further sum in order to keep the Corporation in being and to enable it to continue its beneficent work in the industry until the various measures which I shall be indicating in more detail later this afternoon and the


measures which the industry must take can put the industry on a sound financial basis.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: It seems a little unfortunate that the Debate in the House should take place in this particular form because we are left in an anomalous position which, I think, makes the House look rather ridiculous. We are more or less precluded from making speeches on the general subject by the way in which the Second Reading has been moved by the President of the Board of Trade. The House is left in the position of voting the money and afterwards considering why it should do so.
I do not think it is any secret that we shall advise our hon. Friends on this side of the House not to divide against this Bill. We believe that, in the circumstances, another £1 million is necessary, and I only say that it is unfortunate that the Debate should take place in this order. Therefore, I reserve my other remarks, which will no doubt be poignant to hon. Members, but entirely ineffective, to the later stages of the Debate. We shall let this Second Reading go through and await our opportunity.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I should like to reinforce what the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has said. Some of us, perhaps, do not share the satisfaction of the President of the Board of Trade with the way earlier sums of money have been used, and we would wish to say so before we make further sums available. I cannot help feeling it is rather a pity that the Debate has been handled in the way that it has been. However, it may be that, in the peculiar circumstances of planning that now exist, this new way, by which we regularly have the cart preceding the horse, is the appropriate method. I agree that on this matter we should not seek to divide the House but

should pass on to the consideration of the activities of the Corporation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Royle.]

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, as respects the permitted maximum aggregate amount of principal outstanding in respect of advances made by the Board of Trade to the National Film Finance Corporation, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the new Act increasing from five to six million pounds the limit on outstanding loans by the Board of Trade to the National Film Finance Corporation, being an increase in the sums which are by virtue of the said Act of 1949—

(i) to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund; or
(ii) to be raised under the National Loans Act, 1939; or
(iii) to be paid into the Exchequer and issued out and applied, in so far as they represent principal in redemption or repayment of debt, and in so far as they represent interest in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt; and

(b) in the case of the dissolution of the Corporation, the cancellation by virtue of the said Act of 1949 of the whole or any part of any liability of the said Corporation to the Board of Trade which is attributable to the passing of the new Act."—[Mr. Harold Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

NATIONAL FILM FINANCE CORPORATION

4.43 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Film Finance Corporation for year ended 31st March, 1950.
The first Report of the National Film Finance Corporation shows clearly how much it has achieved during its first year of operations. In recording that achievement, I am sure the House would want me to pay tribute to Lord Reith and his colleagues for their hard work and for the imaginative way in which they tackled their very heavy responsibility. I should like to refer, especially, to the part-time members of that Corporation. If ever part-time directors earned the very small fees they are paid, these certainly did. I should like also to pay tribute to Sir Michael Balcon for his services in advising the Corporation on individual film projects.
I think the Report justifies the statement I made in the Debate in December last that:
…if the Government had not established the National Finance Corporation a year ago there would have been by this time an almost total collapse of British film production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December. 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2695.]
I do not need to summarise the Report to the House. It sets out clearly a number of things. It sets out the difficulties the industry was facing when the Corporation was established, the difficulties due to the poor revenue expectations of the film producers. I shall add a few words about the revenue position later.
The Report had a good deal to say about the position of financing in the industry and describes the methods of finance it has had to adopt in providing working capital for different kinds of film production. It emphasises the difficulties in this industry of getting sufficient control over the budgets and production costs of individual producers.
The House will have noticed that a large proportion of the money available has been loaned to a single company, the British Lion group. The House will re-member that it was the original conception, when this Corporation was established, that it should lend to distribution companies which were themselves

financing production, though we intended, at a later stage, to work out methods of financing independent producers direct, and not through distribution companies.
As the Report makes clear, both methods are now in operation. The loan to British Lion has come under some criticism in certain quarters, and the House will have noticed that on the matter of the British Lion company the report is very frankly worded, as I am sure, the House would wish it to be. But it is clear, and I want to stress this, that except for that loan to the British Lion company a high proportion of film production would never have been made. It was a necessary first step in saving the British film industry from disaster, even if it meant, as it did mean—and one must be frank, and the report is quite frank—putting loans into a company before being able to take all the necessary preliminary steps to secure effective control over expenditure.
If the Corporation, and the committee preceding it, had had to wait for such control, British film production would have come to a full stop. The Corporation is not complacent on the control of expenditure even now. It makes clear that, even at the end of the first year, its control over the production of the British Lion group, being indirect, is "less effective than elsewhere," as it says in paragraph 63 of the report.
The report refers to improvements in financial control it was able to insist upon as a condition of loan, but it goes on to comment:
The degree of independence given to, or assumed by, some of the producers, is such that full information, especially when units are on location, is not always provided. Too frequently, also, approved budgets are exceeded.
Therefore, the Corporation is not yet satisfied that its control is adequate. It is right that I should say that, and not burke this issue in any way.
There are three things that can be said about the part of British Lion in the Corporation's activities. In the first place, films of great value and great prestige—and what is even more important from the financial point of view—of great box-office appeal, have been made as a result of the loan made to the British Lion company. During the period since the British Lion group was enabled to continue production, as a result of this loan, there have


been produced "The Third Man," "State Secret," "The Happiest Days of Your Lives," which has been very successful in terms of box-office, "Odette," which has set up new records and is likely to be a film of world appeal on the scale of "The Third Man," and there has been "Maytime in Mayfair" and other films. That is a point to be borne in mind in considering the Report of the Corporation, that these films could not have been produced, in all probability, if this Corporation had not been established.
The second point is that, in spite of the problems of financial control, the degree of financial control over production by the British Lion group has greatly improved, though the Corporation is not yet satisfied—and I think the House would want the Corporation to exercise more vigilance in this matter of financial control over production. Third, although the accounts of the British Lion company have not yet been published, I understand that they are likely. to show a material improvement as compared with the position at the time the original loan was made. I think it right to make that point to the House in considering the position of loans made by the Corporation. Some loans have been made also to other distribution companies, and here the Report shows the Corporation is satisfied with the control exercised over the production involved.
Turning to the Corporation's activities in relation to independent producers, on which many of my hon. Friends expressed some concern when the Bill went through the House, because they thought it involved a concentration of finance on distribution companies, they will be glad to see from paragraph 26 of the Report that most of the Corporation's loans have been to independent producers, though not, of course, the bulk of the capital loaned. The Board of Trade were not slow in defining, and later extending, the clases of case in which these loans could be made direct to independent producers. In fact, there have been 36 such loans to 29 companies, as one can see in Appendix D to the Report.
The Report shows that the usual methods of financing have been taken into account. It was always assumed that the commercial banks would provide "front money" up to about 75 per cent.

of the budget or the cost against the distribution guarantee; but the Report shows that one of the major distribution companies has recently reduced the proportion of cost covered by its normal guarantee. Then there have been cases in which the bank concerned has failed to discount a distributor's guarantee, leaving not 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the cost of the film to be financed by other means, but 100 per cent.
The recently successful film "Morning Departure," which I am sure many hon. Members would agree was a first-class production, brings great credit to the British film industry, and at the same time is of considerable box-office attraction. It was one for which the N.F.F.C. had to provide "front money" and "end money" as well. The House will have noticed in paragraphs 40 to 45 of the Report a dissertion on the question of the security on which the Corporation has insisted. This has been the subject of a number of Questions and also of Debate in this House. I do not wish to repeat the whole of that section, but the House will have noticed that the general condition of the Corporation is such as to ensure.
that its loan is not the first money to be lost.
The Corporation has generally provided "middle money" or, as it says in the Report, "the front part of the end money."
The House will have noticed, I am sure with approval, a new class of case which was approved on 20th February this year, and is referred to in paragraph 50 of the Report, under which the Corporation's loan-making authority was extended to cover advances to companies organised on a co-operative and nonprofit distributing basis, without insisting on private investment apart from the deferring of a certain portion of the fees, salaries and wages until other costs had been recovered.
This enables loans to be made to guilds or co-operative groups of independent producers, and the cases which gave rise to this authority arose from a decision of two of the prominent trade unions in the industry to form such companies for purposes of production. I am sure that the House will welcome this development and will wish it every success. It has been gratifying to see in an industry


in which the normal production units have been forced to contract, for one reason or another, an example of private enterprise from the trade union side.
I am sure, without in any way being complacent, that the House will agree that the Corporation has done a first-class job in the face of considerable difficulties. It has had success, and—I think one can use this phrase in no sense of complacency—its success is not to be measured solely in terms of the number of films which have been made and which would not have been made but for its activities. I think its operations have also had a wholesome effect on the methods and financial working of film production.
In paragraph 20 the Corporation takes up a point which has been expressed a number of times in this House, that when the Corporation was established it was felt
that it might be possible to establish more economical standards and perhaps in general a higher code of commercial practice.
The Report continues:
Something, at any rate, seemed to be necessary if the industry were to regain the confidence of private investors.
So, by exercising a measure of financial control both over the distributing companies and also over independent producers, it has been able to achieve a great deal in affecting some measure of economy as well as in encouraging higher commercial standards in budgeting, cost control and in the presentation of accounts, though this improvement is very far from complete. As I have said earlier this afternoon, it is not possible to achieve miracles in this industry in a single year.
Let me now turn to the future. The Government's policy on the rôle of the Film Finance Corporation is exactly the same as when the Corporation was established, which was through the provision of working capital, to enable this industry to float itself off the sand bank on to which it had drifted and to become once again an industry which can expand the quantity of its production without lowering its quality. That is still our objective today, and I believe we have advanced a long way towards it, though, as became clear from the Bill which has been given a Second Reading by this House, the job is certainly not yet complete.
There is a general point that I would like to make. Taking into account especially the good effect which the Corporation is having on the industry in aiding it to improve its commercial standards and economy. I am sure hon. Members will be coming to the conclusion that the Corporation is fulfilling a rôle for which there may well be a permanent need in the industry, not indeed on the basis of the provision of Government money, but by association with more normal means of obtaining finance. I believe that those who in past years have advocated what used to be called a Films Bank as an integral part of the industry's structure, will feel that this first Report of the Corporation has considerably justified their arguments.
It is impossible to discuss the position of the Corporation either as regards its present or its future without talking about the financial position of the industry as a whole, because the future of the Corporation and its financial prospects are closely bound up with the wider prospects of the industry as a whole. Let me remind the House of the concluding words of the Report:
… whatever the Corporation may be able to do, its financial operations cannot be more than a measure of expediency. The lending of money will not bridge the gap between income and expenditure.
There has been considerable thought and public discussion, not least in this House, on the question of bridging the gap between income and expenditure in film production. It raises very many questions. First of all, of course, it raises the question of the share of box-office receipts which come to the producers, and that in its turn raises the question both of the share of those box-office receipts taken by the State in the form of Entertainments Duty and also the question of the relative shares of exhibitors, distributors and producers. First of all I should like to deal with the question of Entertainments Duty, which was referred to in the Plant Report and has also been much discussed in recent Debates in this House.

Earl Winterton: It was not only referred to but criticised very strongly in the Plant Report.

Mr. Wilson: I agree with the noble Lord's correction. It was criticised in the Plant Report and also in the Gater Report. The view has been expressed in


many quarters, and not least by the noble Lord himself, that it was impossible to get a reasonable revenue for producers without some reduction of Entertainments Duty. That raises very wide financial considerations, which has been the subject of debate by this House in recent weeks, and, quite apart from that, I think the House would agree that a straight reduction in Entertainments Duty would have been a costly and clumsy way of achieving the aim of getting more money flowing back from the box-office to the producer. As I said in some remarks to the Association of Cine Technicians two months ago:
If the present proportions between the various sections of the industry were continued, and if no reduction in Entertainments Duty were passed on to the consumer, for every million pound remission of Entertainments Duty not much more than £100,000 would come back to the British producer.
Again, there have been proposals, taking various forms, under which a lower rate of tax would be charged for British films than for foreign films. But I am bound to remind the House that discriminatory taxation of this kind would be in defiance of our international obligations.
As the House will be aware, discussions have been going on during the past fortnight between the Treasury and representatives of the film industry in the hope of drawing up a scheme to be introduced within the industry under which, as a result of minor changes in admission prices and adjustments of the Entertainments Duty Schedules, revenue coming from the box-office to the producers of British films could be increased. I am glad to be able to tell the House that as a result of these discussions agreement has now been reached and that I have received a letter only this afternoon bearing the signatures of the four associations principally concerned in this matter, recording their agreement on the scheme which has been before them.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it also true to say that there was no qualification in the agreement?

Mr. Wilson: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by "qualification." I propose to say a little about the agreement and if, at the end, he has any questions to ask I shall be glad to try to answer them.
I do not think it would be convenient to the House for me to attempt to read the whole of the agreement, because it is rather long. I sent a copy to the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and I hope it was received. I have also placed copies in the Library so that hon. Members may study it in case they want to read it quickly before they make their contributions to this Debate. I am considering what is the best way of as quickly as possible making a complete copy available to all hon. Members who want one. It might be for the convenience of the House, however, if I indicated the main outlines.
The Treasury have indicated to the industry their willingness to abolish Entertainments Duty on seats up to and including 7d. and to reduce by a halfpenny the duty on all seats above 7d. and up to and including Is. 6d. This will not involve any change in the price of these seats though it will be of some assistance to the exhibitors, particularly those owning small theatres who are in a difficult position in competition with the bigger theatres; it should enable them, in due course, to improve the quality and the service which they provide.
At the same time, provision is being made by which seats exceeding 1s. 6d. and not exceeding 3s. 9d. in price could be raised by 1d. in each case, of which a halfpenny will go to the Treasury in increased duty to offset the loss of revenue of the reductions on the lower priced seats. Special provision is also being made in the case of seats above 3s. 9d. The principal changes which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be proposing to the House involve changes in the whole Schedules of Entertainments Duty enabling the exhibitors to make the small increases in prices for admission without bringing themselves into new and higher ranges of Entertainments Duty.
The results of these changes will be, first of all, a net reduction in the Treasury receipts from Entertainments Duty of some £300,000 and an increase in the amount of box office earnings remaining in the hands of the exhibitors, in the first instance, at least by some £3 million. As part of the arrangement, however, the exhibitors have agreed to pay half of this additional sum, in other words, about


£1½ million, into a central pool from which payments will be made to producers of British films. The administration of this pool will be in the hands of a committee consisting of representatives of the four trade associations who have signed the agreement: the principles by which allocation from the pool will be made will require the approval of the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade will also appoint the independent chairman of the committee which will operate these allocations.
The Government have made it clear to the industry that payments from the pool to producers of British films must be made on a purely automatic and objective basis. I think it would be wrong for the committee to be in the position to make discretionary grants to particular producers and I am sure the House would not wish there to be any such element in the payments made. Although detailed arrangements have to be worked out, payments will be made on the basis of a fixed percentage of the actual box office earnings in this country by British films, thus providing a further financial incentive to produce films of high box office appeal.
I should make it plain that the receipts of the pool will be channelled through not only to first feature producers but also to producers of supporting items, short and documentary films and so on, though not to news-reels.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the American companies producing films with their blocked sterling in this country will be included?

Mr. Wilson: The definition of a British film in this case is the definition of a British film in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, and is all films counting for quota. That would include, of course, films produced in this country by British subsidiaries of American firms.
I should also mention that the Government trust that it will be possible to use a small proportion of the receipts from this pool to aid bodies which have been established within the industry for the purpose of improving the quality and value of British films and also to support the production of types of films the value of which is not always measured by their box-office earnings. Nevertheless, by far the larger percentage will go to first and

second feature producers. An illustration of what I mean is, for example, children's films which it might be possible to aid out of this pool, although the exact working of the pool is a matter for further consideration and discussion.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am afraid I did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that these sums which have been recovered from Entertainments Duty will go, in proportion to box-office earnings, to encourage companies to make pictures of high box-office value. Now he says the money is going to encourage artistic and not necessarily box-office films. Does that apply to feature films?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think the hon. Member quite heard what I said. I must apologise. The point is that by far the greater proportion—one might say 90 per cent., although I do not know what the figure will be—will be channelled on a purely automatic basis on box-office earnings to first and second feature producers. A small proportion will be allocated both to aid some of the bodies to which I have referred—what they are is being considered—and also to make possible the continuance of the production of particular types of films which I am sure the House would wish to see maintained but which, by their nature—and I am sure the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) appreciates this—are not at present able to meet their cost out of box-office earnings. I gave the example of children's films as a case in point. This matter is to be further considered by the industry and there is to be further discussion and I cannot say very much more about it at present.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any organisation is to be set up to which a portion of this money shall be allocated for the production of children's films, and what would be the nature of the constitution of such an organisation?

Mr. Wilson: I think my hon. Friend is taking the matter much further than so far has been considered. I am sure that he and other hon. Members and quite a number of people in the country want to see the production of children's films maintained and, as I have said, the use of the pool in a small way, without


diverting too much from the main purpose, may be to assist in that direction although it is too early at the moment to say what will be assisted.
The main results of the scheme should be to provide a considerable increase in the revenue of the British film producing industry since they will receive not merely the £l½ million from the pool but also, of course, their share on a rental basis of the increased box-office revenue remaining in the hands of the exhibitors. The result should be that the revenue flowing back to producers should be increased by some 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. above the present figure and that should have a very considerable effect on the revenue position of the industry.
I am sure that the House, while endorsing the need for additional capital in the hands of the National Film Finance Corporation to maintain film production—as it did a few minutes ago—will agree that by far the most important thing is to improve the revenue position of the industry on a commercial basis. Indeed, I think one of the pleasing things about this scheme is that the additional money will be found, not from any outside sources, but from the sale of the products of the industry—from the box-office; from the public who want to see the films being produced, and who wish to see maintained a good British film producing industry.
I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute to the representatives of the associations concerned within the industry for the way in which they have put sectional interests aside and have combined to agree to a policy which is designed to help the whole industry. Perhaps it will not be inappropriate particularly to refer to the position of the exhibitors, because in the past a number of us have pointed out that their direct financial interest as exhibitors was not always coincident with the financial interests of the country, and not always directly coincident with the financial interests of the producers, though when I said this last December I pointed out that there were many leaders on the exhibition side of the trade whose devotion to the public interest far transcended any considerations of financial or short-term views.
I think that this has been proved by the attitude of the exhibitors in these negotiations. The exhibitors do, in fact, get relatively little out of the new proposals, and are involved in more work in making their contribution to the pool. However, I am certain that what they are doing to help the British film production of this country will, in the long term, redound to their own benefit as well as to that of film production.
I should like to turn to the problem of the distribution of the revenues of the industry after tax—that is, the distribution between the exhibitors, distributors, and producers. On this, of course, we had the Plant Report which the House debated last December. Various organisations in the film industry were invited to comment on the Report, and their comments showed differences of opinion, of course, on various points; but I have got to say that the general view of the industry was hostile to the main thesis of the Report, particularly to the central recommendations for introducing more competition into the industry and for setting up an independent tribunal.
The comments of the various sections of the industry were referred to the Cinematograph Films Council for a general view. The Council, as the House knows, has, under the Cinematograph Films Acts, a wide mandate to keep under review the progress of the cinematograph films industry in Great Britain. I am glad to say that the Council, instead of recording mere differences of opinion, got down solidly to the job of giving a view of the industry as a whole. It set up a subcommittee—of which, I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) was a member—which put in a great deal of hard work, and produced a report which is a unanimous report apart from the memorandum of dissent by the representatives of the A.C.T.
The Council's Report is in striking contrast to the earlier views expressed by the trade organisations, and it does show a real effort on the part of the trade members and producers to take a wider and less sectional view of the state of the industry. They have accepted the chief contention of the Plant Report, which is that the arrangements for distributing and exhibiting films in this country have become too rigid to allow the good


films to earn as much as they could for the producer, and have agreed that more competition and flexibility should be introduced into the trade. But they could not agree with the more drastic measures recommended in the Plant Report, particularly the measures for competitive bidding, because they felt and said that the theoretical advantages of this form of competition could not be thoroughly applied to the film industry owing to the impossibility of standardising film production or of having any common formula covering the different kinds of films.
But the Council felt that more could be done and should be done to give as much encouragement as possible to the more successful films. Of course, the scheme I have announced today will help with that. They agreed that certain adjustments in the distribution system were needed in order to bring this about. The individual recommendations they made to achieve this are complicated and technical, and I think it will not be necessary for me to enter into any detailed discussion of them, particularly as joint discussions are going on between the exhibitors, renters and producers on this question.
So I turn finally to the other side of the problem, that of reducing the gap—the problem of production costs. This was the subject, of course, of the Gater Report which we debated in December, and I need not repeat what the report said or the points we all made in debating it last year. However there are one or two points I should like to stress. First, I hope the changes in the revenue position arising from the new scheme I have outlined to the House today will not lead to any remission of activity in getting costs down on the part of the industry.
This industry, with a home market of only a fifth or sixth of the market which the United States industry has, cannot afford any extravagance, any excessive fees or payments, or any excessive pandering to artistic perfectionism. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean, even if he does not like my choice of language. Great strides have been made in the past year or more in getting costs down, and these are also showing considerable results. As I have said, the National Film Finance Corporation has itself made a considerable contri-

bution to this work. The work must go on, and the improved financial position of the industry must not be allowed to stand in the way.

Mr. Baxter: I am sure the President will forgive me for interrupting him. If there should be a decision to turn another Shakespeare play like "Hamlet" into a film, will that come under the term "pandering to artistic achievement"?

Mr. Wilson: If there were any suggestion to spend £1,250,000 in producing a film—and I am not referring to "Hamlet" or "Henry V," which did a great deal of good to the British film producing industry, and were thoroughly good propositions in every respect—

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman's supporters below the Gangway are manifesting anxiety.

Mr. Wilson: —but if there were any suggestion to spend £1,250,000 to produce a film likely to earn at the box-office far less than its cost. then that would be a proposition that I should not consider economic. We have all known of films—examples have been quoted in the House—produced not only in this country but in the United States, in the making of which thousands of pounds were spent in order to try to get one particular scene just right. I think the right hon. Gentleman has given us illustrations of this sort of thing—where they have expended tens of thousands of pounds upon one particular scene which, in the end, has not appeared in the finished film. It was that sort of thing to which I was referring. I was not speaking of the sort of thing the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) mentioned in his interruption.
It is important also to make active progress on what is one of the central themes of the Gater Report, the relationships between managements and workers in the industry. A few weeks ago, when I was addressing the bi-annual conference of one of the trade unions of this industry—with which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West is associated—I said this:
The technicians and workers in the industry led by their trade unions, have a substantial contribution to make to the revival of the film industry in this country. For example, to insist on the over manning of a particular job, whether in the studio or on


location, may look like reducing unemployment. In fact it is likely to hinder the recovery of the industry and, therefore, in the long run, to cause unemployment.
The Gater Report drew attention to what needs to be done in this direction.
The existing wages agreements undoubtedly require review, in particular to provide greater elasticity in working hours, and in conditions of work on location.
That was one of the lessons of the Gater Report. For 12 months or more the two sides of the industry had had before them proposals for a joint industrial council to act as a negotiating body between employers and the three principal unions one of whose first jobs would be to examine the present agreements. It is extremely disappointing that the difficulties which have been experienced in establishing this joint industrial council have not yet been overcome. It is a matter of urgency, if the production cost problems of the industry are to be solved, that these difficulties should be overcome.
Another of the subjects still requiring attention on the production side is that of studio costs. Independent producers who are obtaining finance from the National Film Finance Corporation complain that in order to get a distribution guarantee from one of the major distributors they are frequently forced to use a studio associated with that distributor, and that they thus have to pay a higher studio rental than they can afford. I am not suggesting that the major studio owners are taking advantage of their position to overcharge. I think the point is that one of the main reasons for the high level of rentals at the bigger studios—those associated with the big distribution companies—is the heavy overhead expenses due to the existence of elaborate general service departments which are frequently not required at all by the small producer.

Mr. Shepherd: Might it not also be that owing to the burden the industry carries continuity is not possible, and that therefore the overhead charge on the studio is very heavy indeed?

Mr. Wilson: That is a point I have made on a number of occasions. It is, of course, very much a matter of argument how much of that overhead charge should be passed on to the individual independent producer by these big companies. It is

a very debatable point. If the major organisations are not prepared to allow independent producers whose pictures they distribute to use the less costly small independent studios, then it is urgent that they should take steps to re-organise their own studio charges so that they can accommodate these independent producers at rentals which they can afford.

Earl Winterton: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my putting this point, to which I think he will be sympathetic. It must be remembered that a good deal of this so-called heavy overhead charge is due to trade union restrictions which only allow certain people to do certain things.

Mr. Wilson: I have already dealt with the relationship between the two sides of the industry, but I think the noble Lord will agree with the point I have been making about studio costs. It is in-fensible for any company to use its control over distribution to force a particular independent producer into a studio at a higher rental than he would have to pay on, say, the free market.
Now I come to what is to my mind the central problem of the industry—the responsibility for initiating production, the mainspring of the industry, because whatever questions have been raised in this House about why more films have not been produced this is really what we have been discussing. The National Film Finance Corporation is not the mainspring of the industry, and was never intended to be. It exists to provide working capital for appropriate projects that are brought to it, and its main problem in stimulating production has been, as the Report makes clear, the shortage of good projects and good scripts coming forward. In drawing attention to this I want to make it quite plain that I am casting no reflection on our script writers and others concerned with the planning of production, because our script writers and technicians are second to none in the world.
The deficiency is rather in the organisation of the industry, which seems incapable of mobilising the available talent to the full. As long as the Rank Organisation was in the centre of the picture we had a central organisation which was mobilising the available talent and organising what in the industry is called


pre-production, and so on. Now a great deal is still being done by other groups, by the Rank group itself, and by independent producers, but the mainspring of the industry is still, I think the House will agree, inadequate. To my mind, one reason for this is that distribution is far too much in control. The distributor in this industry fulfils two functions. First of all, he acts as a wholesaler, selling and distributing the films made by the producers. But secondly, he acts also as a banker, giving guarantees of sufficient standing and security to enable the producers to obtain bank loans in the form of front money. The distributor is, in financing production, taking very considerable risks, and therefore his services as distributor are expensive.
Of course, the dependence of the industry on the distributor involves the independent producer in the use of particular studios. If the industry were in a sounder financial position, as we hope it will be, there would be less need for distributors to act as bankers. If other sources of finance were available, if banks were willing to lend front money direct to producers, distributors could confine themselves more to distribution and charge no more than a reasonable commission for the function of wholesaling.

Mr. Drayson: Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest whose money the banks would be lending for this purpose?

Mr. Wilson: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman really means. For a considerable time the banks have been lending money the sources of which are known to the House.

Mr. Drayson: Their own depositors.

Mr. Wilson: Their own depositors. They have, in fact, been lending it against guarantees from the distributors. I have suggested that the excessive control of the industry by distributors is involving the industry in high costs of distribution. I was going on to suggest and I think the House will agree, that the existing distribution services are inadequate; they are too costly and too rigid, and it is certainly a question whether we shall not need a distribution agency capable of acting on behalf of producers, doing a purely wholesaling job and not a financial job; a distribution agency established either as a co-operative agency by producers, or by

an enlargement of the functions of the National Film Finance Corporation. Even this will not, I think, provide enough of a mainspring to ensure full production in the industry.
If, as I think, there are disadvantages in the excessive control of the industry by distributors, this does point to the need for a stronger organisation on the production side by concentrating a number of independent producers, for instance to produce on a group basis. This would facilitate production planning and preplanning, the commission and preparation of scripts, and so on. If this happened I think it would be a healthy and important development in the industry, and I am sure that the National Film Finance Corporation can play an important part in helping to get it established. I am sure the whole House would wish to see the National Film Finance Corporation assisting in this way.
Another need, I think, is for better arrangements for overseas distribution. A good deal has been learnt in the past few years about overseas selling, and a great deal has been done, especially by the Rank Organisation, in very many countries in all parts of the world, in many cases in face of tremendous difficulty in the form of restrictions on our films. The industry is still, I think, in need of some central organisation representative of the main production units for the purpose of maximising our revenue from overseas. There is a great deal the industry could do on a voluntary co-operative basis in improving this, particularly in working together to choose films appropriate for particular markets, and also giving appropriately selected films—films capable of earning money abroad and raising the prestige of our industry—the advantage of selection by such a voluntary co-operative body.
In spite of the length of time I have been speaking, I am aware that there are very many aspects of film production, and of the factors bearing on this Report and the future of the Corporation, which I have not touched on. I have said nothing about joint production with American companies, for instance, which is already an important part of current production in this country, and which is an integral part of our programme for producing films capable of showing on world markets. I hope, as a result of


the relationship with the American industry which we trust will follow the discussions I have had recently with Mr. Eric Johnston and Governor Arnall, that American production in this country and co-production can be facilitated to the benefit of the industries in both countries.
I have frequently stressed that the problems facing this important industry can be solved only if all the parties to it—Government, both sides of the industry, exhibitors and renters—play their full part. On the changes in the Entertainments Duty structure, which will enable greater revenue to flow to the producers, I have already indicated this evening what the Government are prepared to do. It is now for the industry to put its house in order, to eliminate waste, to increase its efficiency, to reduce its costs, to remove rigidities in distribution, and to make those structural changes which I have indicated are in my view essential.
The industry now has a great opportunity to put itself on a sound and secure economic basis. Remembering the thousands who depend on it for their livelihood, the millions who depend on it for their entertainment, and the rôle it can play on the screens of the world, I am sure this House will want to express to the industry the view that in facing up to this heavy responsibility it must not allow itself to fail.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not take it amiss if I say how profoundly disappointed I was by his speech, which ranged over almost all the subjects which are not relevant to the present position of the industry and made no mention of those matters which really are of import. He spent a large part of his time in an exegesis lecture to everyone else and at the same time said very little about the Government's rôle in all these matters.
It is first necessary to look at the background against which this Debate is now taking place. The Plant Report was presented to Parliament in November, 1949, and a Debate was initiated by the Government in the following month.

December 1949. At that time, the President of the Board of Trade, in his opening remarks, used these words:
I am sure it will be a Debate that will cut right across party lines…
as I hope this one will, too—
and I should like to say here and now that the views expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be of the utmost assistance to the Government in framing a long-term policy for the industry, which we were not in a position to do until these reports were received, and until public opinion had had time to make itself felt on their conclusions.
He went on to say:
I am sure the House will understand that the Government, in proposing that a Debate should be held so soon after the publication of these reports, and before we go away for the Recess, are not in a position—apart from expressing their broad agreement with most of the conclusions of both reports—to go into any detail on plans for giving effect to these conclusions until an opportunity has been given to the various sections of the industry to comment on them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2682.]
Now we have another Debate, and bearing in mind the words of the President of the Board of Trade at that time, which I have just read out, we should not have considered' it unduly precipitate for a long-term policy to be before us now considering that the industry is very hard-pressed. I am not in a position today, I say quite frankly, to criticise the Government's long-term policy on these matters for the simplest of all reasons: that they have not got one. Seven months have elapsed since the publication of the reports with no action, or no action of any significance, from the Government side.
The present Debate is taking place today not because at long last a policy has been formulated, but because the National Film Finance Corporation are now practically out of funds, or up to the limit of advances which the Board of Trade can make to the Corporation by statute. It is a new crisis and not a new policy which has been the cause of this Debate. If proof of the justice of these remarks were needed, it would be found in the fact that it has been left to the film industry itself to take the initiative in this matter. It is common knowledge that my noble Friend, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and many other gentlemen


engaged in the industry met and formulated proposals for the Government which formed the subject of the arrangements of which the President of the Board of Trade has told us.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this was a public meeting or a private meeting?

Mr. Lyttelton: I only know that a meeting took place; I was not there.

Mr. Wyatt: Then what is the point of the right hon. Gentleman referring to it, if he does not know what it was.

Mr. Lyttelton: The point is that I am making this allegation so that if the right hon. Gentleman has any reason to deny it he can do so—that the present proposals were the result of this meeting. The point that I am making is that the initiative in this matter came from the side of the industry. The arrangements concluded with an agreement by both sides. The President of the Board of Trade was courteous enough to send me a copy of the agreement, which came into my hands at the earliest possible moment; it was I think at 3.30; and I should like to thank him for having sent it. I hope that it will not sound ungracious, but the last paragraph of this report states:
The Association whose signatures are attached accept the agreement as a whole as an interim measure.
I think that we must remember these words when we are discussing it.
The Government appear, in the film industry, in three different rôles. They first of all appear as tax gatherers; secondly, they have forced themselves into the position of being the patrons, impresarios and financiers of the industry; and, thirdly, they are indirectly, through the National Film Finance Corporation, setting up in the business of being the judges and arbiters of public taste in films. This time, having wasted seven months, although, no doubt, their labours have been great, I do not think that they can take it amiss when I say that not even a Government mouse has been produced.
I do not say that the President of the Board of Trade may necessarily be the villain of the piece, or I should say, the villain of this no feature film. He has

been a Minister in search of a policy, a policy that would not only put the film industry on a firmer foundation, but a policy which would have been acceptable to the Treasury. He has not been able to pull off the double event, and I am not sure whether he can even manage the single event.
I said that there was no long-term policy in what he has explained to us today, and I feel that I ought perhaps to try to justify that remark. I must refer first to the arrangements, suggested by the industry, which the President of the Board of Trade has given us this afternoon. Frankly, I do not think that even the most complacent supporter of the Government could say that this was a long-term policy. It has all the marks of being dictated by hasty expediency, and by a crisis which is bound to recur unless the main problem is tackled and the underlying conditions are improved.
Before I come to the Report of the National Film Finance Corporation itself, I must make this criticism, which really belonged more to the Second Reading of the Bill. These new arrangements are still insufficient and the extra £I million which we have just given are merely being put in to bolster up a structure which is still thoroughly unsound and rocky.
I must now go back for a moment to the Report of the Plant Committee. It appears to me that Ministers are not yet fully aware of the embarrassment with which they are likely to be faced when independent reports are called into being. They are quite undecided, for example, what to do about the Lloyd Jacob Report, which would never have been ventilated but for a Private Member's Motion. Here again, in the film industry, the Plant Report made a series of recommendations.

Mr. Wilson: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that it would never have been ventilated had it not been for a Private Member's Motion?

Mr. Lyttelton: I mean that the only time the recommendation of the Lloyd Jacob Report has been before the House has been on the Motion of a Private Member.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but perhaps he will recall that in the Debate on the Budget I


referred to this matter and said that we were going to consider it and were going to put proposals before the House.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is a matter of fact. We cannot regard the right hon. Gentleman's interpolations in a Debate on some other subject as putting the matter before the House. There has been no official meeting on the matter of the Lloyd Jacob Report.
I do not want to carry this any further except to say that, in the film industry. the Plant Report made a series of recommendations, and admittedly the most important concerned the Entertainments Duty. On the occasion of that Debate, I asked the President of the Board of Trade a number of questions to which. of course, I have received no answers. They would be embarrassing questions to answer. One was concerned with the position of the producers. The Plant Report said:
The higher the British quota, the more certain it is, having regard to the amount of producing and playing talent and productive equipment available, that the value of the films produced in this country will not at best be more than average and that their share of the net receipts from British cinemas will not suffice to recoup their production costs. The Entertainments Duty takes too much.
Later on, it says, and these are very strong words:
When full allowance is made for errors of computation, it remains abundantly clear that the average receipts fall far short of the minimum average cost of production.…On either assumption, the average cost of production cannot be recouped at present from the cinemas of Great Britain,
because of the high rate of Entertainments Duty. The Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation reinforces, in a single staccato sentence, the findings of the Plant Report. The President of the Board of Trade has already quoted the sentence, but I must do so again:
But whatever the Corporation may be able to do, its financial operations cannot be more than a measure of expediency. The lending of money will not bridge the gap between income and expenditure.
These words are about as far as we can expect a nationally-owned corporation, sponsored and controlled by the Government, to go. Personally, I am surprised that they went as far as they did. The writing is on the screen in unmistakable terms in that sentence.
The main burden of the Plant Report concerns the Entertainments Duty, but there are many other recommendations about which I shall have to say a word later. I must at this point express my personal view that the present arrangements will not be sufficient to put this industry on a sound footing. Of course, these arrangements represent an advance, because they are an acknowledgement by the Treasury that the milch cow cannot be milked to the extent that it has been without the danger of the poor beast collapsing in the dairy from debility. In one way and another, a good deal of overmilking is still going to take place.
As far as I understand it, the new arrangements appear to work like this. About £3 million is to be shared equally between exhibitors and producers, and £1½ million will be placed in a pool, managed by a committee, which will be solely for the benefit of the producers. I suppose that between 200 and 300 first feature films are required per annum to keep the cinemas open on the present scale. I do not know what number of British first feature films the President of the Board of Trade has in mind. If it is, say, 100, the direct advantage to each of these pictures will be about £15,000, plus a rather difficult calculation of the extra part of what the exhibitor gets which is to flow into the producer's pocket from the percentage of box-office receipts.
If the President of the Board of Trade has in mind 100 British first feature films, including these unremunerative films, the producer will get an advantage of £15,000 on each of them as a result of this new arrangement, plus some small extra percentage. But the Plant Report makes it abundantly clear that the minimum average cost of production for a British first feature film is £140,000 to £150,000 on the most efficient and economical scale, whereas the maximum, under the present arrangements, that the producer can get back from box-office receipts is about £90,000. In other words, there is a dead loss of between £50,000 and £60,000 which the producer has to face year in and year out on the production of British first feature films.
We do not need to be told that this arrangement which reduces the loss by £15,000 per film is an alleviation. I imagine I am exaggerating the number of British first feature films when I put


it at 100. I may be grossly exaggerating. The number may be 50, in which case the producer will still be losing, according to the Plant Report, between £20,000 and £30,000 on every production.
It might be worth mentioning that one of the disadvantages of the scheme, or so it appears to me, is that the fewer British first feature films are made the greater will be the help from the fund. If the industry is run mainly with an eye on its financial advantages, there is what we have now come to refer to as a "disincentive" to making large numbers of British first feature films. The incentive is to make less films so that the £1½ million can be spread over fewer films, which is a curiously inverted result of an arrangement to stimulate and expand production of British first feature films.
So much for the relief the present arrangements give to the industry on that score. The House has just voted £1 million to bolster up for a short time a position that is still inherently unsound, without any long-term policy being discernible in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. On the other hand, if this is "it," then what has happened to the other recommendations of the Plant Report, in which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and others take even more interest than I do? It is true that I am more doubtful about some of these recommendations than they are, although I do not pretend to have studied these matters to quite the same extent. There is, for example, the subject of conditional bookings, which is allied to what shall be the maximum percentage of box-office receipts allotted to the producer. The House is very familiar with the subject. I am only summarising it by saying that members of the Plant Committee think that if there were much higher maximum box-office receipts available to the producer when he has a real success, then the need for conditional bookings could be dispensed with. Not a word was said about that, except in passing, by the right hon. Gentleman.
If this was a long-term policy we were discussing, maybe the Government would reject such a contention. but the House is entitled to know why. Again, I say that the absence of any reference to the subject underlines the fact that these proposals are not a policy but an expedient to meet another crisis which

has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and gets £1 million, and then proceeds to explain some of the reasons why he has had to do it. If this is "it," and if the idea of the Government is an arrangement by which they continue to levy Entertainments Duty at the present level—and the total levied will be very little different under the new arrangement from what it is now—it means that the old Government motto, "The consumer always pays," will be carried on in this Bill. If that is what it is, we should have been told so. But are there some other plans germinating in the right hon. Gentleman's fertile brain. If so, how long will be the period of gestation? Last time, seven months failed to produce any visible deliverance.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Premature.

Mr. Lyttelton: I thank the right hon. Lady, who has a vast knowledge of these medical subjects, for assisting me on this subject of conception and delivery. Perhaps I can put it in another way. If in seven months the right hon. Gentleman produces absolutely nothing, how long will it take to produce something?
Once again the Government have had to turn on the tap of the taxpayers' money. It is true that it is only a dribble, £1 million—nowadays we think nothing of £1 million here and there—but it is still dribbling into a tank full of holes. Some of them have been stopped up but many more remain. Hon. Members will not follow into the confusion of thinking that the finance is in any sense a return of the tax. The finance is loaning money against every stick of security which the National Film Finance Corporation can obtain. The President of the Board of Trade has different views about successful finance from an old-fashioned man like myself. He describes the operation of the Film Finance Corporation, which loses £700,000 on loans of £5 million, as a striking success. I should have expressed it a little bit differently. I should have said the fact that it has lost such a large proportion of its capital in a short time must not blind us to the fact that it has done successful work in other directions.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman have been satisfied if, on his


old-fashioned canons, he had allowed the film industry to collapse? Would he have considered it then a striking success?

Mr. Lyttelton: The interruption is hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's usual level. I was making the limited point that he should have expressed his gratification with the results in slightly different terms. He should have said—and I was coming to this when he interrupted me—that the industry owed a great debt to the Film Finance Corporation which, nevertheless, has involved a very great financial loss. It is a sign of the times that a Minister of the Crown should describe as a signal success a Finance Corporation which loses one-fifth of its capital in a few months.
The real reason why it has lost this money is because the Government have created business conditions over the general run of the British films in which films will always be carried on at a loss. There is no sign now of the possibility of the producers getting even a meagre profit.

Mr. Foot: It would be interesting to the House if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us when it was discovered by the people who produce films in this country that the Entertainments Duty was making absolutely inevitable a burden on the industry which prevented them from operating at all?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not in the councils of the big film producers, but I should say that I became aware of it when I read the Plant Committee Report, which Committee was set up by the Government, and which lays down that on the most efficient basis there will be a loss of £50,000.

Mr. Foot: The level of Entertainments Duty has been the same for many years. At the end of 1947 the Rank Organisation, for instance, announced the biggest programme of film production ever organised in this country. That was at a time when the Entertainments Tax was at the same level as at present, but there was no mention, when it was proposed to go ahead with a £9 million production programme, that the Entertainments Duty would interrupt it.

Mr. Lyttelton: It turned out that because of that tax it was a losing programme. There is no doubt they put the need to fill the theatres at too high a figure, and Mr. Rank himself confessed that they engaged on too large a scale of film production. Neither the script writers nor artists existed on a scale sufficient to sustain that plan.
There is one other subject on which I want to speak, and that is the administrative difficulties. I do not know, but I thought that the President of the Board of Trade held out some hope that the present scale, which is set out in this table of the Report, is going to be radically altered. It really is intolerable that the scale of taxation should be so jerky and arbitrary as it is at the present moment, causing the utmost amount of administrative confusion. It should be imposed in a different way. Surely the time has come when we should have an ad valorem tax at two or three rates, and the Government, who have been continually engaged as amateurs in the industry, should leave it to the industry to work this ad valorem tax quite simply.
Hon. Members know very well that, for example, if an exhibitor wants to get another penny on the 1s. 9d. seats, under the present arrangements of taxation he would either have to raise the price to 2s. and give the Treasury 2d., or he would have to engage in one of those exhausting negotiations with the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman, by which he keeps the ld. and the Treasury gets ½d. Surely the time has come when we can safely leave to the experts in the industry the planning of their business, so that they can make up the maximum price they can get consistent with the maximum attendances, letting the Treasury take the tax ad valorem.

Mr. Blackburn: I agree, and have agreed for over a year, with the general view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that the producers, in general, are bound to make a loss on a first feature film, but as the right hon. Gentleman has accused the Government of lack of a long-term policy, I think it would help if he would tell us what is the Opposition's long-term policy for the industry?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is not our role. It is never the role of an Opposition. This old red herring has been dangled in front


of my nose in more attractive terms and tones than those used by the hon. Gentleman. If I were, upon the Report of the National Film Finance Corporation, to elaborate at anything like the length taken by the President of the Board of Trade, on what my policy would be, I should be not only out of order, but I should take far too long a lease of the patience of the House.
I hope in anything that I have said I have not shown myself unmindful of the help which £5 million—now to be £6 million—has been to the producers. They have been given up to date exactly £5 million of help at a cost of about £700,000. It is difficult to overrate the plight to which British film production would have been reduced without this money. What I do not like is the continued bolstering up of a position which I still think is inherently unsound. Mr. Lawrie and his colleagues on the Board are to be congratulated on presenting an annual report in a series of short sentences, most of which appear to me to be couched in English language. It is very refreshing, and very few of the more popular cliches of our time are to be found there.
I confess to some amusement, as a Tory, not untinged by nostalgic sentiments, to see that the taxpayers' money has been used to finance productions which are intended to titillate the public fancy under such titles as "Saints and Sinners," "The Wonder Kid"—I wonder if that has any particular significance—"What a Carry on," "School for Randle," "Skimpy in the Navy," "She shall Have Murder," "Happy go Lovely," "The Galloping Major," "The Body Said No," and "Her Favourite Husband." It would have surprised some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors at the Treasury—we heard a great deal about Gladstone in the earlier part of this afternoon's proceedings—to see the Treasury in their black funereal dress present at the first night of say "Skimpy in the Navy." And present they must be, at least in spirit because not only is the taxpayers' money being invested in these somewhat unorthodox products on the one side, but the Treasury get back £38 million in Entertainments Duty from the industry on the other.
I have already quoted the most significant paragraph in the Report and

Accounts. They say in a very indirect way that much more comprehensive and broader-minded policies are required if larger operations are to be other than a stop gap and an expedient. They evidently think the same way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought, upon a broad national front. He said:
We have tried to deal with it ever since by a series of temporary expedients which have led to a serious crisis as each expedient became exhausted.
That is very true of the whole policy, if there is one, of the film industry.
I have two main criticisms to make upon the operations of the Corporation. The first is that £700,000, although a very massive sum, will prove to be far too small a provision for the loss against the total loans which the Corporation made. I am not entirely out of touch with expert opinion in this industry, and they put it, I hope wrongly, at a very much higher sum than £700,000. I suppose that if the Corporation lose a couple of million in the next 12 months they will say that they nave been three times as successful as they were last year. I have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Lawrie and his colleagues, but if losses on this scale are to be suffered it will be from the causes which I have discussed. We are asked to provide finance for producers who are not what the Americans call creditworthy, under these conditions. Whoever replies for the Government should give us some idea of what the size of the losses may be during the next 12 months.
The next criticism, which I fear is a very strong one, is that no less than three-fifths, or 60 per cent., of the advances are made to a single company. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade's explanation, both halting and incomplete, will be supplemented by some further statement. We are entitled to know in much greater detail why this has happened. I consider that a loan of such a disproportionate amount to a single company cuts across the whole conception of the Corporation and its usefulness to the industry. It says in the report that some time before the Corporation was formed the British Lion estimated that £2 million would be required to finance its production programme, already planned. My own information is that British Lion were promised this money, or a large part of it, by the Treasury before the Corporation came into being.
We are entitled to have an explanation of why this was done. When the accountants investigated the affair it was shown that £2 million was quite inadequate. The loan was eventually agreed at £3 million. It does not increase our confidence that such large advances should have been made to a single company. The report, in paragraph 11, descends into one of those Sibylline platitudes with which we are familiar in other contexts. It announces something which we can really see for ourselves when it says:
Throughout the period covered by the Report the relationship between company or corporation and the British Lion Film Corporation has been radically different from that between company or corporation and any other concern, distributing or producing.
Those are rather double-edged remarks. We would like to have a much fuller explanation why three-fifths of the money put up has gone to a single company.
I conclude my remarks by expressing my sympathy with Mr. Lawrie and his colleagues in that they are being asked to loan money, and public money, to an industry in which lending is, by the Government, made a highly hazardous operation. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade sneering at the City as he did during the last Debate, because it did not want to lend its depositors' money when the underlying conditions created by the Government means that there must always be a loss on the average of every British production. The time will come when Mr. Lawrie and his colleagues will be subject to a great deal of uninformed criticism. I do not think they will deserve it.
That criticism, as I have tried to show, should be directed to the Government, which cannot make up its mind about its long-term policy. What it does, it does too often, too little and too late. Too often, because it is bad for an industry to be tinkered with several times a year and to have its affairs the subject of debate in this House every six months. That is not good. Too little, because, as I have. shown this afternoon, the concessions do not bridge the gap between the cost of production and the estimated receipts. Too late, because it is not until crises actually develop that any schemes to deal with them are formulated or brought before this House.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The President of the Board of Trade has his sequences all wrong this afternoon. He introduced the cinematograph film subsidy before we had an opportunity of seeing the annual report of the National Films Finance Corporation. He told us in his speech that an agreement had been reached and that a copy of it will be in the Library. Those who have not seen a copy before the Debate will not be in possession of that information.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has been given the extra £1 million and I have not the slightest doubt that the Report will be received, as a result of the Debate, with general agreement by the House. I was a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us something about his discussion with Mr. Eric Johnson, the representative of United States film industry producers. He said, in passing, "I have had talks with Mr. Eric Johnson," but there was not a word about them, although it was on a subject in which hon. Members take a considerable interest.
Undoubtedly, the President of the Board of Trade is in search of a policy. He comes to the House and makes a speech, we all make contributions, and, finally, the Debate is wound up, without a policy having been stated for the film industry. We get committee after committee. The committees would make good films which could be shown profitably in the cinemas. We could have been able to make them in abundance. There has been a long list of committees which have all made recommendations and we have discussed them in our Debates. Then we read in the newspapers that the industry is in a bad condition and that production is at an all-time record low level.
It has generally been believed that it is because of lack of capital that the industry is suffering and that if we could increase the capital we would increase the production of British films. I do not believe that. I believe it is the other way about. It is because we produce a series of first-class films, world beaters of export value, but use a series of bad films in the cinemas, with the result that they undoubtedly frighten away a good deal of money. I do not believe we shall solve these problems by coming to the House


of Commons and making the kind of announcement that the President of the Board of Trade has made this afternoon. That will not provide the long-term policy and it will not establish or re-establish British film production on a successful basis.
Many of our technicians have gone out of the industry. In the old days we built up the industry by importing technicians from the United States. We never had an abundance of technicians. I have no doubt that, having read the Debates in this House and having gone from crisis to crisis, they have given up all hope of seeing a long-term policy for production and have gone into other industries. It will require something more than the establishment of a pool of this kind to attract them back. Artists, directors, lighting experts, cameramen, script writers and the rest have all suffered from the fact that the industry has been in the doldrums, and as many as could do so have left the country and gone to the United States of America or the Continent to find employment.
I am extremely disappointed that despite his favourite child—Governmental management of the film industry—all the right hon. Gentleman can offer us is this arrangement, about which he has told us and which was hinted at on the Finance Bill, which will be something in the nature of a production pool to encourage more production in our studios. An hon. Member asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot what his long-term policy was, and he was entitled to ask that. We have had quotas and we have had Debates for 15 or 20 years in this House, but I have never yet heard of a really long-term policy for the industry. A long-term policy has certainly not been produced by the Opposition.
At the risk of being thought heterodox, may I express my belief that the only way in which we shall be able to establish the British film industry upon a permanent basis, is by putting it upon a Commonwealth basis. We shall never build up our film industry upon a narrow parochial basis. Such things as accents give rise to difficulties in exporting films to the dollar markets. We shall never make home-produced films international until we try to plan them internationally. Before we are through with the tricky job of trying to

put the industry on a permanent basis we shall be forced to organise it on a Commonwealth basis. All the Commonwealth producers are under quota. The Canadian producer qualifies for quota, and he has the additional advantage that the Canadian accent is better for the export trade in second releases, and so on, in the Middle West. We have had good films from Australia, such as "The Overlanders" with its exterior shots in Australia and studio shots in this country. India has produced some good films, and South Africa has great advantages in the production of films.
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do something a little bolder and try to create a Commonwealth film industry and invite the Commonwealth Governments to make a similar contribution to the pool for financing production? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this because—let us be frank about it—the attempt to get British films in any quantity upon the United States market, particularly in second releases to the Middle West, and so on, has been a flop. I do not know what the figure is; we have often asked for the figures of the Rank dollar balance sheet for the grandiose experiment to try to capture showings in the United States cinemas, which failed. Every attempt to build up parochial production here to reach the United States market has failed.
Why should we not do something a little bolder and bring in the producing industry of Canada, Australia and South Africa, and make a Commonwealth production pool assisted by a Commonwealth production council in this country? The Treasury of each Commonwealth country could make its contribution, and each country would qualify for the quota in this market.
I have said before that I think the film is international, and I repeat that to the right hon. Gentleman today. The Labour Party came into being preaching internationalism. It preached internationalism from a thousand platforms. Yet time and time again the Government have introduced Measures which try to build up or safeguard a nationalistic viewpoint. We cannot possibly save the British film industry unless we plan it on an international basis, and that can only be done with the co-operation of the Commonwealth and United States exhibitors and producers.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall resist the temptation to go all round the earth on this subject. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) when he says that these Debates are occurring in this House far too frequently. It is not good for an industry such as the British film industry to have these periodical inquests, for they are becoming inquests rather than discussions.
It would be most ungracious of me as the representative of thousands of men and women in the British film industry, if I did not convey our gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade and his Department for their constant and zealous interest in our affairs and their constructive aid. It is true that had the National Film Finance Corporation not been established there would, to all intents and purposes, have been no British film producing industry today.
The launching of the National Film Finance Corporation was timely. It was coincident—although it was not organised—with the decline in fortunes of the production side of the Rank Organisation. Those of us who know the subject and the facts witnessed that decline—temporarily, we hope—of the fortunes of production by the Rank Organisation with great regret because no man and no organisation could, out of their own commercial resources, have done more to try to put the British film industry on the map than did Mr. Rank and his Organisation. They were supported by others. There was the British Lion Film Corporation, with its great team of producers and executives. There was also the Associated British Picture Corporation, which has followed an active and progressive policy in keeping our studios going.
The fact still stands out that thousands of executives, artists, mechanics, artisans, technicians and others, both high and low, owe their employment today to the facilities offered by the National Film Finance Corporation. I regret that my right hon. Friend and subsequent speakers did not refer to the simple fact that, quite apart from the prestige of British films, and so on—I agree with the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) about the international claims of films—there was a human factor in this.
It may be of interest to the House to know that hundreds of families have, during the last 15 years, left their homes in various parts of London and established themselves in the vicinities of our larger studios—Pinewood, Denham, Elstree—where they rented houses or, in those early years, bought them on the instalment plan through building societies. Believing, as they had the right to believe in common with any worker in the country, that they could look for reasonable security in this growing and important British industry in which they chose to work, they got married and reared families. Today, the lot of these people is depressing and disturbing. Several thousands of them, most of them members of my own organisation, are in sore straits as a result of the decline in the fortunes of the British film industry.
Those who are left, are grateful for the help given by the President and his Department, though that help from our point of view, is completely inadequate. We talked about £1 million on the Bill which has just received its Second Reading. That may seem a lot of money, but the Treasury, in the last 10 years, have taken nearly £500 million out of the cinemas of this country in Entertainments Duty alone. It is no good hon. Members on both sides of the House dismissing it as an irrelevancy and saying that it is a racket, a bluff or a facade because a real problem arises when money is taken out of an industry which it cannot recover from the public because of increasing costs. If the Treasury have taken about £500 million in the last 10 or 12 years, what is £5 million or £6 million given back to it in this way? It is less than chicken-feed to an industry which has to operate in a big way.
I have said before, both inside and outside this House, that the Government should look at this problem in a bolder and bigger way than they are doing. The arrangement reached this morning with certain managerial associations in the industry is indeed an ingenious one, but I am afraid that Sir Wilfrid Eady of the Treasury was too clever a man for the puny minds of the industry. How they swallowed that scheme I do not know. It is true that it brings money into the industry, but it is entirely inadequate.
Before leaving that point, may I say that I feel there has been a serious


departure in the practice of the Treasury, operated by other Government Departments, in coming to an arrangement of such importance as this one, affecting the livelihood in so many ways of nearly 100,000 people employed in the industry without consultation with the trades unions concerned. My right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade has always consulted the unions in the industry on all important matters of policy. While we have no right to be consulted, it is a practice which Government Departments have followed, especially in the last 15 years. I hope I shall not have to criticise the Treasury again in the House as I was obliged to criticise the former Chancellor of the Exchequer when he did something similar in imposing an ad valorem duty without consulting anybody.
It would be helpful if, in the Report next year—it is too late now—we could have in Appendix D another column showing the precise sums loaned to each producing company and, in another column, the repayments that have been made on those loans or whether any repayments have been made at all. In other words, we should have the facts itemised. I do not intend that as a criticism, but as a suggestion. Apart from that the Report is a splendid piece of work, submitted in record time.
While a rate of interest of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. may appear to be reasonable, it can be a great trading handicap to some independent producing companies. The interest mounts up and has to be paid. Perhaps the Film Finance Corporation might consider in certain cases reducing the rate of interest so as to allow greater elasticity and facilities to certain independent companies.
We welcome the setting up of cooperative schemes and the blessing given to them by my right hon. Friend. At present my colleague association, the Association of Cine Technicians, has established a co-operative society for the purpose of production. My own organisation is embarking on a similar plan and in that way we hope to contribute constructively to the maintenance of the industry. But this idea of co-operative schemes should not be limited necessarily to those inside the industry. They should be open to any body of people who have

at heart the interests of the industry and of international films. The right hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned a long-term programme, but he overstressed it. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), who asked the right hon. Gentleman what proposals he had to make.
Is it realised that the British film industry is 100 per cent. private enterprise? It is not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or his Department or the Government who are on trial, it is the British film industry, a commercial, free, independent industry that is on trial. It is because of the breakdown of its component parts that the Government have had to intervene and give it aid, although that aid, in the view of many of us, is inadequate. If the Conservative Party or any other body of people can prepare a policy which the industry can operate without having recourse to Government support, I shall be happy, because I can see that a continued subsidy from the Government towards the film industry might, in the long run, lead to great difficulties and raise considerable problems.
I detain the House for this short time only to identify myself and those I represent with the work of my right hon. Friend. I have resisted the temptation to deal with many other points which can be dealt with in the future.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Batcher: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) always speaks with such authority in these matters that anyone who follows him in Debate would be doing him the gravest discourtesy if he were not to refer to some of the remarks which he had made. I found myself very largely in agreement with much of what he said. The first and most important way in which we can view the problem of the film industry is in the terms of human suffering. Hardship is being sustained by members of the association which he so successfully leads and on behalf of whose members he entertains such a genuine and sympathetic interest at all times. Another point of great importance is that the amount provided by the Treasury by way of loan to the industry is very little com-


pared with the large sums which have been taken from the industry over a period of years.
Nothing was of greater interest to me in the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, than to learn that his own and other similar organisations, by means of co-operative ventures, were engaging in film production. I am sure that the whole House would wish great success to these co-operative ventures. At this stage, however, my views begin to diverge from those of the hon. Member. He suggested that there should be co-operative ventures by people who are not connected with, or interested in, the film industry. I rather thought that the implication was that these co-operative ventures by people inexperienced in the industry were to be financed by the National Film Finance Corporation, whose first report we are considering. I am bound to remark that if a few of us with no knowledge whatever of this matter could secure from that body financial support to the extent of 100 per cent., we would be perfectly happy to experiment, and to see how we fared.
The hon. Member said that in the case of the film industry it is private industry that is on trial. He would be right but for one thing: namely, the heavy toll now being levied on the industry by the Treasury. But for this heavy burden of taxation, they would have only themselves to blame if the industry has got into a muddle and there would be no reason why the House should come to their assistance; but when, as the hon. Member himself said, so large an amount of money is regularly taken from the industry, it is not right to suggest that it is private industry which is on trial. Nor is it the breakdown of the components. Indeed, I hope to show later why I think that there should be a greater breakdown of the components in the industry.
I turn now to the report of the National Film Finance Corporation. I hope that whoever replies to the Debate for the Government will give us considerably more information on one or two points than has been given so far. The first point on which the Government must be pressed is the substantial loans which have been made to the British Lion Film Corporation. I know nothing at all about

that organisation. All I know is what I see in the Report. One thing which is obvious, however, from paragraph 10 of the Report, is that British Lion are pretty bad estimators of their needs. That paragraph says:
British Lion had originally estimated that £2 million would be required to finance its production programme… an independent investigation by accountants was required… The investigation showed the estimate to be quite inadequate.
One is entitled to ask what steps the Corporation have taken to ensure that future programmes and suggestions which are advanced by British Lion do not contain the 50 per cent. error of their earlier estimate. In the light of their failure, as disclosed in paragraph 10, to estimate with any degree of accuracy, it is rather disturbing to learn from paragraph 11 that the relationship between the Corporation and British Lion has been "radically different" from that which any other concern enjoys.
Again, also on the question of British Lion, I ask the House to examine paragraphs 86 and 87 of the Report, which refer to money coming back to the Corporation for the purpose of re-lending. It is clear that money by way of repayments will come into the account of the Corporation but that none of it is due from British Lion We are entitled to ask why some of the smaller companies are able to make more rapid repayment than this larger concern and principal beneficiary under the loan I should like the President of the Board of Trade to give some further indication, for which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) also asked, regarding the present state of his relations with Mr. Eric Johnston. If we are to examine all these matters, we should be told where the British industry stands in relation to the American industry.
It would be of the greatest possible interest to us all to be given some information as to the position of Mr. Rank's organisation. The whole country is-greatly indebted to Mr. Rank and his organisation for the way in which, at the request of the Government—let it never be forgotten that it was at the request of the Government—they assumed hurriedly the task of rapidly increasing our film production. They did well, but unfortunately their venture did not secure the


hoped-for results. Nevertheless, Mr. Rank is greatly to be thanked for what he did, and we hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to say in what way he will be able to assist Mr. Rank's organisation on the lines of the assistance which is being offered to British Lion.

Earl Winterton: I naturally welcome that friendly reference to Mr. Rank, but I ought to say in reply that Mr. Rank is asking for no such assistance as that given to British Lion. I think that it would be better to keep his name out of it, because it really has nothing to do with this particular point.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the noble Lord; I take his point. Nevertheless, it should be made clear to all producers—and I mention no names, if that would please the noble Lord—that if they require assistance for increasing film production, it will be made available to them.
The President of the Board of Trade indicated that some arrangement had been come to between the industry and the Treasury for a readjustment of the incidence of Entertainments Duty. As I understood it, the proposal was that the Treasury, by readjusting the prices of the cheaper seats and imposing additions upon the higher seats, would make a concession of some £300,000, and that these adjustments would result in an increased revenue to the exhibitors of £3 million. If that is so, one can only assume that the difference between £300,000 and £3 million is to come from the pockets of the ordinary picturegoers. Let us be quite clear what we are doing. We are basing any hope of coming to the rescue of the industry on the assumption that Bill Jones and his girl, who now sit in the 2s. 3d. seats will be prepared to pay 2s. 6d. or 2s. 9d. instead of moving to the ls. 6d. seats and so making a small saving for themselves.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) suggested that the Government were interested in the industry in three ways: as tax collectors, as im-pressarios, and as arbiters of taste. He forgot the fourth, and, perhaps, even more important, way in which the Government are interested: they are its creditors.
In dealing with this industry we ought to realise that we are dealing with an

entertainments industry, and that all entertainments industries are subject to ebb and flow. This industry is suffering not only because of the shortage of money, although it is interesting to note that the duties on beer and tobacco, both heavily taxed commodities, are now providing diminishing returns. The film industry is also in competition with other and newer forms of entertainment of which television is perhaps the most notable. It is also in competition with the newly found freedom of the road due to the abolition of petrol rationing. It is also in competition with the live theatre. We are, through the Arts Council, endeavouring to establish a better taste in ballet and opera. It is in competition—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot find any reference to that matter in the Report.

Mr. Butcher: I hope that I am in order in suggesting that the sum contained in this Report which we are now discussing, and in relation to which we are forecasting the continuing activities of the National Film Corporation, must be judged in the light of the continued desire of the ordinary people to see the films which this Corporation is proposing to finance. I will pass from that point, merely saying that the whole future of the film industry and of the Film Corporation which serves its ends are bound up with the continuing desire of the ordinary man or woman for this kind of entertainment.
It is very difficult, as the President of the Board of Trade said, to know what can be done to put this industry back on a proper basis. We are all grateful to Mr. Lawrie and his colleagues for the magnificent work they have so far done, and the clarity with which they have explained what they have done. That in itself is refreshing. Their work will depend on whether the ordinary man and woman can be persuaded to continue to go to the picture houses.
I believe that in presenting this report to the House the President should consider whether the time has not come to make a much bigger separation between the production and exhibition sides of the business. Production and exhibition should be as far removed from one another as possible. I also believe that there has not been on the part of the film industry sufficient thought or desire to make local bookings to suit local needs.


There has been far too much block booking and of not allowing the exhibitor as much freedom of choice as one would wish.
I believe that the President of the Board of Trade is eager to do all that he can to nourish the tender plant of the film industry, but as an hon. Member opposite has said, we have rather too many of these Debates on film matters. The President is rather like the childish gardener—if he will pardon the simile—who is constantly digging up his tender plant to see if the roots are any longer than they were a few days before. Doubtless that is interesting to him but unfortunately it does not contribute to progress and development in the way we are discussing in the light of the report. It is time we had some long-term plan from the Government, failing which these Debates will come along with their present regularity.

6.45 p.m.

Miss Burton: Last week, in common with certain other hon. Members, I put my name down in support of an Amendment to the Finance Bill dealing with children's films. Arising out of the Report which we are now discussing, and out of the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend, I should like to say how very gratified many people on both sides of the House and outside the House will be at the words used by the President. I know that they were general, but it would be an understatement if I were to say that we gathered from them that he would be in favour of looking into the question of children's films in this country.
Most of us have had experience of children in one way or another. I have had charge of them in school, evening institutes, youth clubs and at work. All who are accustomed to dealing with young people would agree that they copy. When we hear stories about young people of today having no manners, and this that and the other, I suggest that it is probably we who have been lacking, because the young people copy us. Therefore, it is most important that they should see on the films or in reality, people or things fitting for them to copy.
To take instances' of actual people, many young people would gladly copy

Denis Compton, or, to be up to date, Washbrook or Stanley Matthews; or, to take the cinema, a gangster, Garbo or Jean Simmons. We should give these young people examples worth copying. Opinion may differ as to whether the examples I have mentioned are worth copying, but we know that when we have been to a serious film or a gangster film we have only to go out in the streets, where young people are imitating the persons they have seen on the screen, to realise what an effect the cinema has upon them.
I do not know whether it is good or bad to quote actual examples, but I remember having seen depicted on the screen a habit which many children I was teaching at the time seemed to like—that of chewing gum, which is not a prepossessing habit. When I was in America a friendly cab driver gave me a stick of chewing gum, and as he turned to face me I had no option but to eat it. That was all very well until I reached the end of the sweet part. I had no idea what to do with it; it seemed never ending. I remembered that I had seen people in films "park" their chewing gum, presumably when they had finished the sweet part. I had to "park" mine in the cab of the driver who had given me the chewing gum. That may have been a good or bad example.
Speaking seriously, the type of film that children see is most important. I am not speaking for any organisation; I have no connection with any; but I should like, as an ordinary Member of the House, and as one who is interested in the education of children, to pay tribute to the work of a woman who has done a great deal in this sphere. I refer to Miss Mary Field who has played a big pioneering role in the production of children's films. I hope that in the future the President of the Board of Trade will find it possible for the making of children's films to continue.
I believe that the only country other than Britain which makes a big effort in this direction is Soviet Russia. I have not seen any of these films, and I do not know whether they are good or bad, but I believe that we in this country should not fall behind in this matter. I urge my right hon. Friend to let us give the children something on the films which is really worth having and make possible


more productive efforts, which may not necessarily yield sufficient revenue by themselves.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: I wish to make only three points, one of which has been touched on by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). The first point about the Report we are discussing is that I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who said, "Thank heaven at last we have a Report in short and readable sentences which make English." Up to paragraph 21 I became more and more enthusiastic. but then, in paragraph 25, I met the sentence:
all personnel probably have to be engaged ad hoc."
I felt the standard had been let down, and much that followed was, possibly, not as good as that which went before. Then, in paragraph 26, there comes an assumption which, I think, is basically incorrect. It says:
Many films have thus been produced …
that is, due to the Corporation's activities—
which could not otherwise have been made.
We all agree that with the present level of taxation that sentence is probably true, but the burden of complaint from this side of the House is that the need for this Corporation has come about through the Treasury taking too much money out of the industry. Had the money been allowed to remain in the industry, there would have been no need for a Corporation of this kind and no need to have overcome all the difficulties which are so clearly stated in the Report in the subsequent paragraphs. The Minister has referred to many of them and, certainly, in the last paragraph of the Report it is pointed out that the whole of the activities of the Corporation do not and cannot resolve the troubles of the film industry.
I certainly believe that the Minister and many considering this problem are obsessed with the production of feature films. Admittedly, we have an existing pattern of exhibition in this country and have got used to it. But the basic function of the film industry is to amuse ourselves and if, in 1950, we think we cannot amuse ourselves without buying our

amusement from abroad we seem to be in an extraordinarily poor position. If the President wants to set up a really healthy producing industry he should concentrate on building up the smaller units and learn to walk before he can run.
That leads me to the specialised film producers, many of whom operate near and from my own division. I have been at some considerable trouble to work out the effects of the financial provisions for these people. These people provide a training ground for technicians, scriptwriters and all the essential technical services of the film. Surely the more we can draw these people in and the more they can get experience in cheap ways the better will be the ultimate result.
If we are to encourage these people there is one step above all that the Minister can take easily, and for which he does not need any powers he has not got. That is to stop the practice of selling a composite programme to the circuits or cinemas. If we examine it we find that by doing so we are simply importing from the United States, at cut rates, mass produced and rather shoddy second feature films. This is the kind of thing on which the House obviously will be divided, not from side to side, but up and down. Those who, like me, stand for the producer, not only in this but in every walk of life, and not least in the case of the producer against the salesman, will see that this principle limits the producer and is a bad thing for the industry. I ask the President to go into this matter, about which he is fully informed.
My third point, which is quite simple, relates to the proposals he announced to the House. During his announcement he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who asked whether this arrangement had been agreed to by the exhibitors without any saving clauses. That seems to be a most vital question, and I hope we shall get an answer to it. It seems that, as the Minister admits that under our Geneva international agreements no compulsory scheme can be put into operation, he must, therefore, rely on a voluntary agreement with the exhibitors for the payment of the £1,500,000 they are to make.
Can the right hon. Gentleman enforce that payment? If he cannot, does it


not make nonsense of a large part of this much vaunted encouragement to the trade? Possibly, large sums of money which we all now think are going to go to the producing side of the industry will not, in fact, go there. If the Minister cannot enforce the payment of this amount I would very much like to know what steps he proposes to take to achieve the result he now thinks he is achieving.
To a large number of small producers who are very concerned about it, failure to enforce these payments would be a most bitter blow, which would take a good deal of living down. I ask the Minister, or whoever replies to the Debate, to give a perfectly clear answer to the question of whether these agreements are enforceable and, if there has been any reservation on the side of the exhibitors, as to whether or not they propose to pay the full sum of money envisaged.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Reeves: The President of the Board of Trade set the tone of this discussion when he said, referring to a previous speech he had made, that, but for the work of the Corporation, whose Report we are considering, there would have been a total collapse of film production in this country. In all probability that is putting the situation at its very worst, but there is no doubt that the industry, before the institution of this Corporation, was in a very parlous state and that the work of this Corporation, difficult and trying as it has been, has considerably helped the industry to overcome a very severe crisis.
When listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) I could not help feeling, that in chiding the Government, or my right hon. Friend, for not having produced a long-term plan, he was putting the responsibility on to the wrong shoulders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) has said, this is a private enterprise industry and, although it has been necessary for the Government from time to time in the national interest to undertake measures in support of the industry, surely it is the responsibility of the industry itself to see its way through the difficulties of this time.
This young industry, which is of so much importance to our national life, has.

during the last few years, literally staggered from crisis to crisis. The House must regret most sincerely— because we are all interested in the success of the industry—that it finds itself in this parlous state. Parliament cannot shut its eyes to the situation with which it is confronted today. First of all, our national prestige is involved. We want to see British films not only in British cinemas. but in the cinemas of the world.
The film has become the advance agent in the export industries of other countries, and in view of the great export drive we are undertaking it is imperative that we should have a flourishing industry in this country which can portray the British way of life on the screens of the world. Not only in the field of industry but in entertainment and education the film plays an important part, and 30 million people every week of the year still go to their local cinemas.
By quota lists, by loans and by other devices, the last of which is an involved system of rebate on the Entertainments Duty, the Government have helped in some measure to alleviate the situation. But the fact remains that American films have free access to our markets whereas our films are confronted with almost a closed market so far as American is concerned. That is good neither for us nor for America. There is no comparison between the two industries. Our industry is always at a disadvantage owing to the fact that the home market finds it difficult to recoup the cost of production.
A few years ago we thought that the British film industry was going through a period of renaissance, and very fine films were being produced. I would pay tribute to the work of the Rank Organisation whose films were becoming popular both at home and abroad. It was only when we tried the Hollywood method of producing films, which cost fabulous sums of money, that our difficulties started. In the end the inevitable crisis came; we could not cover our costs anywhere, and so we closed down production over a very wide field. Thousands of technicians and experts were thrown out of work and had to find employment elsewhere.
That was a very bad day for the British film industry. Fine pieces of work then being undertaken, particularly the series called, "This Modern Age" were


finished, and now, finally, the production of children's films has gone the same way. I think of the magnificent work performed by Bruce Woolf and Mary Field, who were encouraged by the Ostrer Brothers in the production of these fine films. It is a great pity that the situation has reached this sorry stage. I believe the President was able to say that he hoped the new pool which was being arranged would enable funds to be available for the encouragement of this type of work.
The industry as at present organised cannot pay its way, and it seems to me all wrong that the taxpayer should be permanently involved in such subventions as we have heard of recently. The industry needs to be considerably integrated. The three parts of it work in a totally independent manner; there should be considerably more co-operation than there has ever been. I suggest that the distribution side is doing relatively well. The exhibition side is doing well, and has done, almost since the days when films were first shown on our screens. It is only the producer who is badly treated. He is the man who has the raw deal. It is he who cannot recover his costs. In this respect private enterprise has failed lamentably and, having failed, it falls back upon the taxpayer.
After carefully reading the Report of the National Film Finance Corporation I am forced to the conclusion that only drastic measures within the industry itself will contribute to a solution of this problem. When the Corporation was established we understood that it hoped to contribute to the continued projection of British films on the screens of the world. That appears from the Report, which also states that its object was to assist in maintaining stable employment. In spite of all its work neither of these aims has been achieved. It was recognised by all that great risks were involved in lending money for film production, and in its Report the Corporation had to conclude that loans would be justified only by overall achievements.
It is very difficult to discover what was meant by overall achievements. I suppose it was hoped to put the industry on its feet. If that were the hope then, surely, it has failed lamentably. If the industry is to live, and particularly if it is to survive the impact of television, which will be a growing competitor in

the days to come, I believe that it has to pool its resources. It cannot afford to be divided as it is at present. Studios are going into disuse. One very large studio, I refer to Lime Grove, has already gone over to television, and will certainly not be available in the future for film production in this country.
A great co-operative effort is needed if the production side of the industry is to survive. I am sure that the offer to assist co-operative groups, or groups of technicians, to undertake the production. of films is the right move, particularly as these co-operative groups are organised upon a non-profit making basis. That is only one aspect. Many other reforms are necessary if this industry is to be saved. Rather than demand that the Government should provide us with a long-term policy, I suggest that it is the responsibility of the industry itself to go into its own affairs and to provide a solution to a problem which is harassing the industry and bedevilling the whole situation.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Nottingham, Northwest (Mr. O'Brien) said, and I agree with him in this, that the common feature of these Debates which we have periodically on the film industry is their inconclusive termination. We all have our views upon what ought to be done for the industry, but nothing seems to get done for it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) said, one of the troubles that the industry is suffering from is that it is constantly being pulled up by the roots to be examined by the President of the Board of Trade and others. No one can expect this delicate plant to recover its robustness under this treatment. I do not know how often the President of the Board of Trade has dug up this delicate plant, but I should like to express the hope that he might dig up the Plant Report and have a look at the roots of that. Then we might get a little more constructive action.
As I understand the position, the principal objects of the National Film Finance Corporation were three, and two of them have been achieved. In doing so, it has performed a very useful function. First, it has kept in being the physical assets of


film production which, otherwise, might have been lost in this difficult period. It has kept the studios and the equipment together. It has also succeeded in holding together the film technicians and operatives. I do not like the word "operatives," but it is a convenient general term for those engaged in the production of films, whether as players or technicians. It has held together a body of people who are able to produce films.
In those two objectives the Corporation has succeeded, and succeeded well. Of course, it has also succeeded in a limited degree in its financial object of attracting private capital to the promotion of films. But it certainly has not succeeded to the degree which was hoped. Nor has it succeeded in its ultimate financial object of attracting private capital back to the making of films without that capital being guaranteed, and indeed almost subsidised, from public funds. The Corporation, in the last paragraph of its Report, summarises and comments aptly upon its own performance when it says:
But whatever the Corporation may be able to do, its financial operations cannot be more than a measure of expediency. The lending of money will not bridge the gap between income and expenditure.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, said that it was private enterprise which was on trial in this respect. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Greenwich himself gave a partial answer to that argument though the answer was sufficiently remote from the argument to give no impression of inconsistency. Part of the answer, as the hon. Member rightly said, is that the British film industry is competing with an American industry which has a home market some three times as large as our own. Therefore, even an efficient private British industry might not succeed in holding its own against that competition. I do not say that it would not: I merely postulate that as a possibility.
But there is the immense further consideration that the British Treasury is levying £40 million a year from this private enterprise British industry. I deprecate the approach to this subject of the Government—and mainly, no doubt, of the Treasury—that there is a certain sum which it is reasonable to look for

from the film entertainment industry and that the condition within which it has to operate successfully, within which the National Film Finance Corporation has to attract private capital to it, is the condition that that industry must supply £40 million a year in revenue to the public Exchequer. I entirely agree with the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, when they say that an entertainment industry is one which ought, in the nature of things, to be self-supporting. It ought to stand on its own feet. But I think that it is only true that it ought to stand on its own feet if it is given fiscal freedom; that is to say, if the Treasury's approach to it is that which it has to any other exercisable activity.
If the production of beer were to slump to such an extent that the brewers were being put out of business, I have a fairly confident suspicion that the duty on beer would be appropriately adjusted. But when we deal with the film industry, the machinery is entirely different. The Government say, "No. We have to get £40 million out of the film industry. We will set up a Film Finance Corporation and through that body we will feed back to that industry"—as it turns out—"some £700,000 a year."
At one stage I think that operation was called "priming the pump." As I understand it, priming the pump is an initial operation. One primes the pump a few times, and then one can pump and the water comes up without any further priming. But at the moment the National Film Finance Corporation is operating on a permanent priming of the pump basis, and nobody can see, in the immediate future, any time when that operation can be stopped.
I record my protest against the attitude which underlies the whole policy of the Government towards the film industry that they should treat the present crisis, for it is no less than that, by priming the pump for the Treasury. That is what they are doing. They are taking from the industry some £40 million a year and using about £700,000 a year of it to keep alive that industry so that they can continue to extract the same amount of tribute in the future.
I ask that the Government should begin to treat this industry from the revenue point of view in exactly the same


way as they treat every other producer of Excise revenue. When they see that the burden imposed is too heavy, they should make the appropriate adjustment. We should not have this monkeying about which is going on by the prolongation of the National Film Finance Corporation. In saying that, I want to make it clear that I fully appreciate the work which that Corporation have done, are doing and will continue to do in the immediate future. But, as the members of that corporation have themselves been the first to say, their work is an expedient only; it is no policy for the industry. It is the duty of the Government to think out a policy and to bring this expedient to an end as soon as reasonably can be done.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: From the remarks made by every speaker in this Debate, it seems that these film debates follow a familiar pattern and course. First of all, we usually have a speech from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in which he shows his good intentions about the industry and his obvious zeal to assist it, despite the criticisms which might be made of particular remedies which he puts forward. Then, we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who shows how gracefully and wittily he can comment on a subject which he approaches with such a fresh and open mind. Then, we have my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), who tries to berate the Government very often for not adopting his advice, although he very often does not remember what that advice was.
We also have the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who will no doubt be back in his place later, who tells us how brilliantly successful the Rank Organisation has been, and how, if only the Government will let them get on with their work, they will not make a worse mess of it than they have done already. On some occasions—at least, we had it in the last Debate—we have had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who addressed us on an amateur dramatic society which he had known some years ago. The suggestion was that if only they had had the good fortune to have been present some useful points

might have been picked up by Carol Reed and others. We usually conclude these Debates with another speech from the President of the Board of Trade, and, a few months later, we find a few more film technicians out of work and the industry in a slightly more difficult state than it was at the beginning.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Aldershot that we should have had in this Debate a declaration of long-term policy by the Government, and a statement of what in their view could be done to help the industry generally. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the President, in his speech today, said that he was not going to be complacent, I think we have to recognise that the industry faces a very serious crisis. It is-perfectly justifiable for the President and others who have the responsibility for conducting the affairs of the British Film Finance Corporation to take full credit for having saved the industry from an even worse catastrophe. They have performed their functions on the whole fairly well, but do not let us imagine, whatever has been done by the Finance Corporation, that these measures are sufficient to establish a prosperous British film industry.
There are still much more serious-problems which have not been faced, and which, in my view, are not even faced in the statement made by the President today. What happened in previous Debates was that some of us said we thought there is something radically wrong in the industry, and that, until measures are taken to deal with these radical defects in the industry, no amount of provision of finance by the Film Finance Corporation or other such makeshift measures will solve the problem. That is not merely the view of a few back benchers on this side of the House, but it is also the view of the Association of Cinema Technicians, which is one of the trade unions concerned or one which includes in its membership most of the talent in the industry. It is the view expressed in much more moderate terms in Government Reports.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot suggested that I was in favour of the conclusions of the Plant Report, but I do not think they are anything like sufficiently revolutionary to deal with this situation., I think that, if the measures. suggested by the President of the Board


of Trade were not effective, the proposals put forward in the Plant Report were equally proposals for tinkering with the situation. I was glad to hear the President's suggestion regarding the operations of the Film Finance Corporation as a permanent body, and also his suggestion that these operations might be extended to deal with the problem of distribution in the industry. That was the most hopeful hint in the speech of my right hon. Friend, but I would have liked to see it elaborated in greater detail.
The deep-rooted evils in this industry, to which there is reference in the last paragraph of the Corporation's statement, are simply these. First of all, the dictatorial powers exercised by the distributors; secondly, the near monopoly, both in exhibition and distribution; thirdly, the reduction of artists and technicians to a position of complete subordination. My right hon. Friend the President made some reference to "pandering to artistic perfectionism." I do not think there is a great deal of that in the film industry, and perhaps a little more pandering to the artists, instead of to the distributors, might make for a great improvement in the industry.
The other deep-rooted evil to be dealt with is that referred to by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston)—the present position in which the producer takes all the risks and the other people do not take any. The distributor does not take any risks, nor does the exhibitor; the whole risk falls on the producer, who has the most difficult task in the industry. Nothing that has been suggested by the President deals with the remedying of these evils.
Nor has much been done to deal with the question of the fantastic overheads on the production side. Here, however, I hope that the Finance Corporation in its operations may have some good effect, not only in reducing the costs of films for which it is itself responsible, but in setting an example to the rest of the industry. But in the main no proposals have been forthcoming from my right hon. Friend the President which are sufficiently radical to deal with these deep-rooted evils of the industry which I have cited.
In the last week or two, there has been a visit to this country by Mr. Samuel Goldwyn, who knows something about

the making of films in America, and who launched out in America against the whole monopoly set up there, because he believed that, if the film industry was to be successful, the film directors and producers must make the films which they wanted to make, and not films which the distributors dictated to them that they should make. He broke out and became an independent producer, and, because of his experience, he fought for the separation of exhibition from production. We can learn from his example and realise that no creative producer will be able to make the real contribution of which he is capable unless steps are taken to recognise his vital role.
It is a great pity that these essential problems of the industry—which have been discussed ad nauseam by the trade unions concerned, or at least by one of them, the Cinema Technicians, and who put forward proposals on the subject over three or four years ago—it is a pity that these essential problems should be submerged by the kind of campaign conducted by some sections of the industry and supported by every speaker on the other side of the House on this question of Entertainments Duty. That is really an alibi, and, if we concentrate on the question of Entertainments Duty, we still would not be dealing with the radical problems of the industry.
As to the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Bell), one would imagine that it was the industry which paid the Entertainments Duty and not the consumer. But the consumer pays the duty, and, if there was to be relief of that duty, presumably, the consumer ought to get cheaper seats. What is suggested by all these persons in the industry who are conducting this campaign against the duty, is that, if the duty was to be reduced, instead of the consumer getting the benefit, the money would go back into the industry, but, if it went back into the industry as it is at present organised, very little of the money would trickle through to the producer.
The exhibitor and the distributor, who are already making fat profits with no risks, would get the major advantage from any reduction in the Entertainments Duty, as advocated by hon. Members opposite in every speech they have made. As I said in an intervention, this story


will not wash. This tale that the film industry in this country is in a state of chaos solely because of the Entertainments Duty has only cropped up in the last one and a half years. It was only after Mr. Rank and his friends had produced this chaos in the industry that they came along with this organised squeal and said that it was the Entertainments Duty which had caused all the difficulty.
In 1947, Mr. Rank introduced a proposal for spending £9 million on the greatest film production programme ever put forward in this country. On 25th January, 1948, he wrote an article in the "Sunday Times" in which he said:
Now our target is steadily increasing production of first-rate films, based not on fear of public taste, but on faith in it. We have to see now that money is not wasted as has sometimes—though rarely to the extent that some people delight in believing—happened in the past; but we have also to see that money is not skimped to make pictures cheap in every sense. Still more important, we must never try to substitute money for ideas. The outlook, I think, is not so dark for British films as some would have us believe. Within our industry we have men of fine creative talent, men of integrity and vision, we have great industrial resources, we have the encouragement of Britain's own filmgoers. I do not believe that we can fail.
That was in January, 1948. There was in that article not a word about the Entertainments Duty. If it were such a handicap to the industry, surely it might have occurred to Mr. Rank then. Of course, he and his friends thought that they were going ahead with the kind of scheme they had put forward, and for them to come along now, when their plans have collapsed owing to their organisation of the industry, and say that it is the fault of the Government through maintaining the same Entertainments Duty, is really the most extraordinary piece of logic one could imagine. An hon. Gentleman talked about the milch cow, but there was no talk of that by Mr. Rank in 1948 when he was embarking on this venture.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Plant Report talks about the Entertainments Duty.

Mr. Foot: Although I do not think the Plant Report is quite so wrong as Mr. Rank, I believe that that Report, and the Gater Report, and most of the other reports, are wrong for the simple reason that on most of these inquiries the Government appoint many of the people

who are responsible for having got the industry into this mess.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the Entertainments Duty now because I have to select Amendments on the Finance Bill relating to it. If we anticipate the discussion on the Finance Bill, I shall have some difficulty in selecting an Amendment of that kind. We are only debating the Report of the Corporation.

Mr. Wyatt: When the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Report, he talked at some length about the Entertainments Duty, and it was then held to be in order. If it is ruled out of order now, Sir, it will be very difficult for any hon. Member to comment on what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I was not in the Chair at the time, and it has rather horrified me to hear so much as I have already. It is not really relevant to the Report of the Corporation.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I think the House would confirm that both Front Benches devoted a considerable part of their speeches to this subject. The reason why I want to refer to the Entertainments Duty is because I believe it is this campaign on the subject which has persuaded my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to produce the agreement which he announced today. I think that agreement has been made as a kind of concession to this campaign. I have no doubt that in reply to my criticism of the agreement my right hon. Friend may say that all sections of the industry have agreed to it, and that, therefore, what right have I to raise any criticism. I do not think that argument is very powerful because if the Treasury proposes to a group of people that it is going to release a certain amount of money to them, they will probably agree to the suggestion, even if they do not think that the proposal is adequate or one calculated to put the industry completely on its feet.
I think that what is even more wrong with the agreement is that it shows that those responsible have not grasped the real troubles that afflict the industry. Here is a proposal under which the exhibitors and the distributors are going to benefit along with the producers. I do not see why the exhibitors should have


any relief at all. I have not heard of any of them going bankrupt in the last 10 years. They are making roaring profits. Even Mr. Rank's exhibitors' organisation is making fat profits all the time. Why should there be an agreement that part of the money is to be handed over to the exhibitors who are already making enormous profits?
In reply to a question which I put to him, the President of the Board of Trade said that the American firms who are making films in this country with blocked sterling and which, of course, qualify under the quota as British films, are going to be able to get money out of this central pool in the same way as the British producers. That, again, indicates that my right hon. Friend and those who advise him do not realise the dangers to the British film industry of this blocked sterling arrangement. It is quite true that it enables some films to be made in this country, and, as a temporary arrangement, we cannot easily object to measures which help to arrest the unemployment in the industry.
But do not let us imagine that by enabling the Americans to make more American films in this country we are really assisting in building up a British film industry. These are not British films that are being made under the blocked sterling arrangement. It is true that many British technicians are being employed, but the main artists are American, and the production of these films is building up the prestige of the American industry rather than our own. When these films go abroad, they are often not shown as British films at all.
They are regarded in New York as American films, and yet, when shown in this country, they are not only allowed to qualify for the quota, but, under this special arrangement, the American producer in Britain, who is not short of capital, is going to have the same access to the pool as the British producer and director whose prestige we want to build up, and who must form the basis of any future film industry which can survive in this country. We are already in the position where only one in five of the pictures shown on British screens can be described as British films. That is a dangerous situation, and I am sure that this

proposal, instead of reversing the tendency, may give more assistance to American producers in this country than to genuine British producers.
There is one material suggestion that I would make to my right hon. Friend, and, perhaps, also to the National Film Finance Corporation. I would refer the House to a paragraph which appears on page 5 of the report, and which refers to the policy which the National Film Finance Corporation proposes to adopt in the future. In paragraph 57 it says:
Few independent producing companies are organised to carry out a programme of production with the economies and other advantages of continuity. The Corporation intends to examine the possibility of financing groups of independent producers, working together to achieve these benefits but without sacrificing individuality. At present producing companies borrow for one film at a time, but no loan has been approved unless the company was thought to have both ability and intention to continue in production.
I think that on the basis of that proposal some great advantage can be secured in the way the National Film Finance Corporation operates in future.
And this is the reason why I feel this clause is important. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade did not put it in the crude fashion it has been put by some others, but one of the tales that we are always being told is the reason why we cannot develop the British film industry is because of the shortage of talent and of script writers, and of other people of talent who contribute to the industry. That was one of the alibis used by Mr. Rank for his failure. He said there was a shortage of talent in the British film industry, and particularly a shortage of stories which can be properly put on the screen.
I believe there is a reference in this Report to the effect that, apparently because the Corporation has not had a lot of scripts that they like coming forward, on their conditions, there is a shortage of talent and a shortage of subjects to put on the British screen. That is the most amazing tale I have ever heard. Anyone going into the cinemas as often as I do would not come away with the impression that there is a shortage of subjects. He might think that the people who made a particular film were short of subjects; but there is the whole world to put on the screen, and a great


part of it has never been put on the screen at all.
It is absolutely fantastic to say that we have a shortage of ideas or of talent in this country. One of the troubles is that the people who have to write the films feel that they have to satisfy the National Film Finance Corporation first, and then the distributor and a particular producer. That is quite a difficult thing to do. Somehow or other we must get round this difficulty and have a system which evokes the talent which, I am sure, exists. The B.B.C. put on about 1,000 plays a year. I admit that not all of them are new plays, but many of them are new and the B.B.C. do not go round saying, "We have a great shortage of talent." They have no shortage of talent for new plays.
If there were a simple method of organisation whereby these new ideas could go forward there would never be a shortage of talent. One way in which it could be done is indicated in paragraph 57 of the Report. We should be able to go to recognised people who have produced or directed five or six or more well-known British films and to say to these directors, "We will give you an opportunity to produce about five or six different films under your general direction and approval, and we will enable you to be the judges of the scripts that come forward to be done in that way."
I think it would be possible under this arrangement, through the National Film Finance Corporation, to enable loans to be made for the writing of the scripts. What happens now is that it is the script writer who has to take the risk of spending six months or so to produce a script. The script writer does not get backing. The distributors and exhibitors are backed to the hilt. They are getting more money under this present proposal, but no one in the Corporation has worked out, in detail, a way in which the talent of the people who have ideas about writing film scripts can be evoked. I hope that this proposal, under paragraph 57 of the Report, does indicate that that is going to happen in the future.
I am sorry if I have been rather long. I believe the National Film Finance Corporation, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, certainly has a record of preventing collapse in the industry; but do not let us go away from the Debate imagining that that is enough.

There is serious unemployment and serious frustration in this industry. There is a situation in which many of the best directors of the country have not made more than one or two films in two or three years, and where many of the people in the industry are despairing about the future.
Therefore, once again, I plead with the President not to think these proposals he has put forward today are a solution to the problem. I know that in this Parliament there are difficulties in the way of bringing forward the radical proposals required. I hope, however, that, in his speech winding up the Debate, we shall be told that the President does not accept these proposals put forward as the salvation of the industry, and that he agrees that there are more radical measures which should be taken in the future. It he does that, it will, at any rate, give a glimpse of hope for an industry in which serious unemployment and frustration exist at the present time.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) began his speech by referring to speeches made previously by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). He said how interesting it was to hear my right hon. Friend approach this subject with a fresh and open mind. I do not think anyone would accuse the hon. Member for Devonport either of having ideas that are fresh, or a mind that is open on this subject. He was consistent in his disapproval. He disapproved of the Plant Report and the Gater Report, the Report of the National Film Finance Corporation and, I gather, even of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. As far as I can see the only report that he would support would be one produced, written and signed by the hon. Member for Devonport.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say something in this Debate, because there is in the constituency I represent, at Boreham Wood and Elstree, about the largest single centre of film production in this country, and the problem of unemployment in that area is very serious indeed. As the last report of the Cinematograph Films Council shows clearly,


unemployment has been growing steadily in this industry and is in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. at present. What is particularly disturbing about this unemployment is that it so often affects technicians in the industry, for whom the hon. Member for Devonport is rightly thoughtful and concerned. They are people who, by the nature of their profession and training, cannot find comparable jobs in other forms of industry. The unemployment problem in film production is extremely serious.
In those circumstances, all who are working in or for film production have welcomed the assistance that the National Film Finance Corporation has given in maintaining film production and employment. It has helped employment and for that reason, people engaged in the industry or representing constituencies where there is film production, are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the initiative he has taken. The good work done has been done at considerable expense. The report shows that provision is made for losses of £750,000. It is an indication of the condition and circumstances of the film production industry that the Government have to put this amount of money into the industry at all and that, having done so, they appear to be encountering such substantial losses.
It seems to me that the reasons for the condition of the industry, which has made the Corporation necessary and made these losses inevitable are complex, and the responsibility lies both with the industry and with the Government. There have been faults on both sides of the industry. Too much extravagance in production is a common complaint levelled against the industry, and I have no doubt rightly levelled on many occasions.
On one point to which the President of the Board of Trade referred—the payment of high salaries and fees—we must bear in mind the attraction of the American industry which can offer large sums to our stars and outstanding personalities. No doubt, there has been extravagance on the production side of the industry, but surely also on the other side, the employee side of the industry, there have been and still remain a large number of serious restrictive practices which are bound to contribute to increasing production costs.

Mr. O'Brien: Would the hon. Member give some instance of the restrictive practices among employees of which he complains?

Mr. Maudling: I think the best known case was that of moving the plant pot; according to whether it was a real plant or an artificial one, a different person was required to move it.
There has been and still is some disunity in the industry both between employers and employees on the production side of the industry, and between the production side and the exhibition side. Those are valid criticisms of the industry, but I am sure at the same time that a great improvement has been made on all fronts in recent years. In the first place, it is clear that production costs have come down and extravagance has been reduced. I believe the President of the Board of Trade himself said that. Once again the Film Finance Corporation has contributed to that process by some of the work they have done on cost control, budgeting and so on. Extravagance and excessive expenditure have been reduced. Similarly, restrictive practices have been substantially reduced in recent years, I am sure, and no doubt that has been a great contribution to the problem of reducing costs.
Then there is the question of agreement between the various parties in the industry. I think the President of the Board of Trade today rather welcomed the fact that exhibitors and producers were prepared to accept the Government's proposals, though I cannot help recalling a time not so long ago when the agreement between the two sides of the industry was regarded by him as sinister rather than praiseworthy. On the question of relations between employees and management, I think that this is of very great importance.
Everything that we can do in this House to encourage good relations should be done, and we should always avoid speeches which are liable to foster ill-will in the industry. I cannot help thinking that speeches of the type made from time to time by the hon. Member for Devonport, who constantly and rather bitterly attacks the employing side of the industry, will not help solve this problem of labour relations in the film production industry.
The causes of the present conditions in the film production industry lie partly in the industry itself and partly in the actions, or inactions, of the Government. The industry has effected a great deal of improvement in recent years, and I am sure that we were all glad to hear the announcement made today by the President of the Board of Trade that the Government themselves are going to mend their ways, and will make some effort to see that further sums go to the producer.
I do not think the Government have played a very big part in this. Most of the effort is coming from the consumer. Out of an additional £3 million, which I understand is to be returned to the industry as a whole, £2,700,000 will come from the consumer in the form of higher prices, whereas £300,000 only will come out of the tax remission, which is substantially less than one per cent. of the total of the present amount of Entertainments Duty. I believe that the industry is now being given an opportunity to go ahead and recover from the position which it has reached.
When this subject of the film industry is discussed in this House there tends to be a prejudice among certain Members against the industry as a whole. I do not know what it comes from. People do not like the standard of values displayed in many films. People do not like chewing gum, or do not know what to do with it if they have any. No doubt, the industry itself in the past has been partly responsible, but we who are interested in this problem should always try to bring home to people the great importance of trying to create good relations in industry and giving the industry a chance to make a recovery from its present difficulties.
There are two final points I wish to make. First of all, there is the question of production of short films, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston). The difficulties of people who produce short films and documentaries are very considerable and, if anything, they have been increased recently by some extra competition that they are having to meet and will have to meet. They will have to meet new competition

within the cinemas as a result of a proposal contained in the Finance Bill, to which I cannot refer in detail at this moment.
I also notice that at a time when the unit which produced "This Modern Age" is having to pack up and go out of business because of the economic difficulties, the British Transport Commission are entering into a substantial business by way of the producton of short films. That seems to me to be a bit incongruous. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will pay particular attention to the difficulties of short film producers. We have in this country a tradition for making excellent short films, and that part of the industry is a training ground for the future technicians and stars of the industry.
There is a point to which reference has been made on more than one occasion, and that is the position of American production in this country. I gather that the American films produced in this country which rank as British films for quota purposes, are going to benefit under the arrangements announced this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport that a film made in this country by an American company, even though it uses British technicians, is very much second best. What we want are British films made entirely by British people in this country.
But when I hear these matters discussed I cannot help thinking of the large and magnificently equipped M.G.M. studio in my division which is not being used at all. Surely it would be better to bring that studio into use and employ men in it, even though some American capital and personnel were involved, than that it should be unused altogether. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will do all he can to encourage the production of American films in this country; it would not be a perfect solution to the problem, but, at any rate, it would be far better than allowing the present serious level of unemployment to continue.

7.58 p.m.

Captain Field: I should like to confess at the outset that I have no experience whatsoever of the film industry. I am not very well acquainted with its technicalities; nor, indeed, am I connected with any


organisation which has to do with films. But I have some experience of juvenile organisations, and it is upon this experience that I want to draw in the remarks that I wish to make.
I hope to be able to dot the i's and cross the t's in the speech made earlier by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). In looking through this Report I am very sorry indeed to find among the long list of films therein not one film connected with children or made specifically for children. All that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has done this afternoon is to throw out a vague hint that these films will, in the future, attract an unspecified proportion of 10 per cent. of a figure which was not quoted, although I believe the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made an estimate of this figure.
I think the problem of children's films is sufficiently important to merit better treatment than this. As the House will be aware, the Departmental Committee set up a couple of years ago under the chairmanship of Professor Wheare has recently published its Report. I do not wish to get into trouble this evening with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by going into this Report in detail, and I shall quote from it and draw from it only in so far as is necessary to illustrate the point I want to make. My contention is that there is an imperative necessity in this country for the production of special children's films, and that the National Film Finance Corporation should ensure that some of the money which is to go into this pool should be used for that specific purpose.
Surveys have been made by responsible bodies, such as the Central Office of Information and the Board of Trade, which reveal that out of all the children between the ages of 5 and 15 years, two-thirds go to the cinema at least once a week. If we take the age group 5 to 17 years, then it becomes evident that children and adolescents comprise about one-third of the British cinema-going public. It therefore appears to me that the cinema-going habit is an adolescent problem, a youth problem, of formidable proportions
It is another significant fact, proved by surveys which have been made, that the people of the lower income groups and

the lower educational standards go to the cinema more frequently than those with higher incomes and higher educational standards. I suggest that this fact acquires a special significance when we consider, as I hope to prove, that the majority of the films which these children see are quite unsuitable for them.
If that be so, it surely follows that there is an absolute necessity that this large proportion of the British cinema-going public should be properly catered for by the production of films suited to their tastes and to their requirements as adolescents. I should like to add, to give a complete picture of the situation, that this problem of the showing of films to children is further complicated by the fact that children can see films in one of two ways. First of all, they can go to one of the children's cinema clubs which usually give showings on Saturday mornings or Saturday afternoons and which cater, at a very conservative estimate, for over half-a-million children every week. Films at these performances are always of the "U" category. Secondly, they can go with their parents or with a responsible adult to the cinema in the ordinary way, in which case they will be admitted, provided they are with their parents or with an adult, even if the film being shown is of the "A" category.
Category "A" films are those which, in the view of the censor, are unsuitable for showing to children under 16. It is part of my case that many "U" films—that is, films which are passed by the censor as suitable for showing to adolescents—are also quite unsuitable for child audiences, bearing in mind the recurrent themes of violence, murder and sex, masquerading under the guise of love, in those films. I am content for the moment, however, to leave as it is the problem of children going to the cinema under the aegis of their parents and to deal, if I may, with the case of the children who go to the cinema clubs which have exclusively child audiences comprising, as I have said, over half-a-million a week.
I believe that the Rank Organisation is the only British concern to have produced specialised children's films, at any rate in any quantity. I have seen it suggested—indeed, we have heard it said this afternoon—that this production is to stop


because the Rank Organisation cannot make it pay. I hope that the National Film Finance Corporation will concern themselves with this matter and will let it be known in the industry, if they can, that they are ready to provide capital for this kind of film.
I know that on the Second Reading of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill in 1949 my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated that there must be no question of a subsidy for film production. Turning to page 9 and paragraph 90 of the Report which we are discussing I find, however, that the Report says that losses may be considerable, that a contingency of £750,000 has been provided for this item and that, in any case, £91,500 has been specifically earmarked for four cases. I always thought that a subsidy was money contributed by the State to the expenses of a commercial undertaking and it seems to me that this kind of loss is. in fact, a subsidy for the film industry. I should have been happier if this subsidising could have been contrived in a better fashion so that the House could have maintained some control, at any rate, over the broad channels into which the money was to flow. In that event, I feel certain that children's films would have claimed a very high priority, if films were to be subsidised at all.
I believe it has been stated, in connection with the Weir Report, that the Rank Organisation do not make any profit at all from their children's cinema clubs or from their specialised children's films and I think that this statement requires at least a little consideration. First of all, we should consider the part which is played by these performances in conditioning children to become docile and uncritical audiences of the cinema in adult life. I am quite satisfied that the industry is aware of the usefulness of these performances in that connection, and it seems to me that they will become increasingly useful to the industry in the future when the struggle between home television and the cinema grows fiercer.
We now come to the question of the renting of films for showing at these performances. I understand that 8 per cent. of the films shown at the children's cinema clubs are special children's films of the sort of which the Rank Organisation has made a speciality. They are

produced for the purpose of showing to children and are very often of high merit. Even the worst of them could only be described as innocuous. The remaining 92 per cent. of the films shown are "U" films which, in the distributors' opinion, are suitable for showing to juvenile audiences. It is my contention that the vast majority of the out-of-date films which are shown to children every Saturday at these clubs are quite unsuitable for any other purpose whatsoever. Indeed, they should be unsuitable for showing to children and certainly they are quite out-of-date and unsuitable for showing to adult audiences.
It will be seen, therefore, if that is the case, that the showing of these old and highly unsuitable films is a source of revenue to the cinema industry which would not be available in any other circumstance. It seems to me that the distributors have a vested interest in keeping open this outlet for their old films, and if we look at it in that light and develop the point then the very pretentious pamphlet which was issued by the Rank Organisation in 1948 becomes merely a facade for the 8 per cent. of good films behind which the 92 per cent. of bad films are shown to our children.

Earl Winterton: As I am connected with the Rank Organisation I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not mind my putting a point to him. I do not want to raise a point of order, but no doubt he will relate what he is saying to the matter before the House, because the Rank Organisation has not taken a penny of the money involved in this Debate. I do not see what it has got to do with this particular question before the House.

Captain Field: I am seeking to prove that the films which are at present being shown to children in these cinemas, whether by the Rank Organisation in any shape or form, or by any other, are totally unsuitable, and that there is, therefore, room for the production of good children's films. In fact, there is an imperative necessity for this. It seems to me that if we could, if necessary, get some assistance from somewhere then we should be able to go ahead with this type of film. Perhaps when my right hon. Friend replies to the Debate he will comment on this point. It seems to me


—I do not know—that the large scale enterprise such as the Rank Organisation, which has hitherto concerned itself with this type of film, is rather unsuitable. I should have thought—

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman again. It is not for me to lay down the rules of order, but the Rank Organisation does not take a penny of the money, and, therefore, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to refer to it, and the Rank Organisation, I suggest that he is not entitled to go on and say what the Rank Organisation should or should not do, because it is not affected by the Vote.

Captain Field: I shall have to leave that to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make a Ruling upon; but I am saying that if the Rank Organisation wishes to continue with this type of film it would, per haps, apply to have some of the money—

Earl Winterton: No.

Captain Field: I have heard it said from this side of the House that it should be—

Earl Winterton: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that does not rest even with the President? I am sure he will agree with me. Under the terms of the Act the money is applied for, and the Rank Organisation has not applied for the money. I would suggest, therefore, that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying is going somewhat outside the ambit of this discussion—how the Rank Organisation should or should not deal with children's films. That is my point.

Captain Field: I disagree with the noble Lord. I say that the Rank Organisation is entitled to apply for some of this money if it desires, and I should not be against it if it did so, to continue making that type of film—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It seems that it has not applied for any of this money we are debating.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. A large number of very friendly references have been made from the other side of

the House to the Rank Organisation. Does it mean we can make only friendly references to the Rank Organisation and not unfriendly references?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The Rank Organisation has been mentioned on several occasions, but I do not think it has received anything under the Report we are considering.

Earl Winterton: May I say, on that point of order, that naturally I do not object to references, friendly or unfriendly, being made. I was merely pointing out, in the most friendly manner, that the Rank Organisation has not received any of this money, and that it seemed to me that the question of its production of children's films did not come within the ambit of the Debate.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not know whether anything I can say would help on this matter, but I want to confirm what the noble Lord has said, that the Rank Organisation has never come forward at any time to borrow any money from the Corporation. However, it is a fact, as I made clear in my remarks earlier, that the Rank Organisation has indirectly received money from the Corporation, inasmuch as studios which might have remained empty have been let to producers, and a number of films have been distributed through the Rank Organisation distributing agency, so I should have thought that any references involving distribution by that agency of the films made by the Corporation would be in order. As the noble Lord has stated, the Rank Organisation did not have to borrow money from the Corporation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I am glad to have it.

Earl Winterton: It is exactly my point.

Captain Field: The point I am trying to prove is this, that films that are at present being shown to child audiences are unsuitable, and I do not think that the noble Lord will deny that the Rank Organisation has some share in the production and distribution of this type of film. I think the Corporation should be allowed to use all the means in its power to encourage the production of specialised children's films—

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Captain Field: —special films for this very large audience—and let me say, unsuspected audience, for it is an audience of a magnitude we often do not realise, going to the cinema regularly in hundreds of thousands every week, and providing the cinema industry with some revenue. I do not know whether it is a profit-making revenue or not, but it must be of the order of from £12,000 to £15,000 a week at least, allowing for the minimum entrance fee of 6d.
Now I want to turn to another serious aspect of the problem which I do not think has been sufficiently stressed, and that is this: What effect does the showing of these unsuitable films have upon our children? If the effect is bad, then there is an opening, as I have stated, for the production of good films suitable for children. I think the Weir Committee came to the conclusion that the physical effects on cinema audiences of children were insignificant, and that the nervous effects could be and often were considerable in their immediate manifestations. Indeed, in some cases they are deplorable.
One decision of the Weir Committee was that there is no clear evidence that juvenile delinquency can be related to the effects of films seen by children. The link between cinema attendances and juvenile delinquency is largely based on circumstantial evidence. However, there is evidence that our social habits and their influence upon children affects the future citizens, and I think it is true to say that the cinema is probably the highest recreational activity that does have an influence upon children today.
I think I ought to mention the fact that one of the members of the Weir Committee has submitted an addendum to the Report that she is of the opinion that the cinema exercises a considerable power upon children's imaginations and behaviour, and that there is a definite connection between juvenile delinquency and attendance at the cinema. With those conclusions I entirely agree. If, as I think, it could be amply demonstrated that the film has a considerable influence upon the behaviour of adults, it must have an equal if not a greater influence upon adolescents.
For instance, we were told that since the showing of the film "The Lamp Still

Burns" a number of girls and women who had seen it aspired to become nurses, and, more recently, I have seen a newspaper report that the showing of the film "The Blue Lamp"—very largely made in my constituency—has led to an increase in police recruitment. That seems to me to show what is undoubtedly the case, that films can influence adults—especially when it appears that it can influence the stolid and genial type taken into the Metropolitan Police.
It also seems to me that films must have a parallel effect upon the juvenile mind. One could go on to state many instances of the influence of the films upon the child mind, particularly, for instance, in the trend amongst adolescents, particularly male adolescents, to wear American clothes of every kind, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has mentioned, in the habit of chewing gum. If adolescents are influenced in this way, surely they will also be influenced in their behaviour. So it seems to me a very significant fact that the types of juvenile delinquency to which particular attention is drawn at the present time are the types of crime usually shown on the films.
Today, we have youngsters going into shops and shooting shopkeepers, in some instances in association with girls. They see this sort of thing on the screen, and in practically all of these films the thrill and excitement is the dominant emotion. I know that to comply with the censorship laws of both this country and America the film must in some way show that crime does not pay, but after devoting 40 or 50 minutes to the excitement and glorification of crime there is, in the last two or three minutes, a short episode in which the criminal is caught or is reformed.
These are the types of films which our children see at the local cinemas, and I do not think it is good enough for people to say that they do not know whether this type of film has any influence upon children or not. It is part of my case that it has. The whole purpose of my argument, as I tried to tell the noble Lord, is to demonstrate that if bad films have a bad and evil influence upon children, then, conversely, good films, if they can be made—and they should be made—would have a good effect upon children.
I trust that in the time I have occupied the attention of the House I have demonstrated that there is here a social problem about which we know far too little, and which, so far from being left in the very doubtful and critical position in which it is today, should be tackled in a positive way. The steps that it appears to me can be taken should be for the film industry to be stimulated in some way, and I suggest that possibly the National Film Finance Corporation can have something to do with this, so that the industry can make an increasing number of films suitable for showing to children. Surely, if suitable subjects are chosen—and the noble Lord, with his greater knowledge of the film industry, can advise me about this—could not they be shown again and again over a period of years to child audiences as new generations of children come along, and thus in some way provide a continuing revenue?
I think that this problem is of sufficient importance to merit very special attention. I hope that the National Film Finance Corporation, when the pool of money to which the President of the Board of Trade referred this afternoon comes into being, will be able to finance these films. No State can remain healthy if its citizens become passive viewers of vicious and evil spectacles, as those of Rome did.
As in the case I have drawn attention to the spectators are our future and growing citizens, the problem is very urgent. At present, the majority of films give a hopelessly distorted picture of life and of its moral values. On the other hand, films properly produced with the assistance I have mentioned could have a profound influence for good upon the young citizen; they could give him healthy and decent amusement, and, at the same time, lead him to a deeper appreciation of beauty and to a view of the richness of his own life and of the whole world.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. and gallant Member for Paddington, North (Captain Field), and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), both spoke of the great importance of children's films, and I am sure that both sides of the House would agree with them. I cannot, however,

agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he says that juvenile delinquency can be laid to such an extent at the door of the cinema industry. I think that the same charge could equally be made against the B.B.C.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) spoke of long-term planning, and I should like to make two short points on that. First, the Plant Report, having laid the main stress on Entertainments Duty, said that the method of distribution in the industry could be improved in order to bring in more money more quickly. It might bring money in more quickly, but I do not think any improvement will bring in more money. Indeed, the tendency is for people to filter from the dearer seats to the less expensive seats; and that tendency will no doubt be accelerated by the announcement made this afternoon on Entertainments Duty. I do not believe that any re-organisation, however well carried out, will cure the continual drop in box-office receipts so long as the Entertainments Duty remains at its present level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) mentioned television, and I should like to hear what the President of the Board of Trade has to say about this. In considering long-term planning we must take all factors into consideration. It is unfortunate that the terms of reference of the Plant Committee did not include some ability to comment on the effect of television upon the cinema industry. I see from page 18 of this Annual Report that television films, primarily for the United States, have been financed by the National Film Finance Corporation. Television is causing the American film industry grave concern; I believe that in due course it will cause the same grave concern over here, and that long-term measures should be taken now and not later.
Lastly, I wish to refer to British Lion. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston spoke in a way with which I quite agree. I, like him, have no knowledge whatever of the film industry; I can only read what I see in the Reports. I will not repeat any of the items that have already been mentioned, but it did seem to me that British Lion got a very


inauspicious start. In paragraph 64 of the Report it is said:
Too frequently, also, approved budgets are exceeded.
Mention is also made in paragraph 65 of the necessity for the film producer to realise that the films must be a financial success. From Appendix E, as at 31st March, British Lion do not appear to be showing any films, nor are there any films classified as "Not yet started." I do not think my doubts have been relieved in any way by what the President of the Board of Trade said on British Lion, and I should like to hear something further from him on that.
I read with great interest the Debate which took place in this House in 1948, and I was immeasurably heartened by something the President of the Board of Trade said then. When supporting the National Film Finance Corporation he said he supported it,
first, perhaps, because the film industry can do much to portray the British way of life and to show our national culture and way of life to ordinary people in other countries in all parts of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2183.]
It is because I echo those sentiments that I wished to take part in the Debate. I beg the Government to stop strangling this industry with one hand and giving it saving injections with the other. We all know that the only way to help production is to have a healthy box-office and the only way to a healthy box-office is by promoting the health of those who provide it.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: This afternoon's Debate on films has followed the usual pattern of Debates on films in this House, and we have had the same performers. We have had the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) getting angry every time anybody has mentioned the Rank Organisation—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) making his usual negative contribution.

Earl Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me perhaps he will do me the courtesy of giving way. Perhaps he will mention on what single occasion I have shown the slightest signs of anger. I rose to put a point of order which was answered by the Chair. The

hon. Member should not put into other people's interventions the temperament which he so constantly displays in this House in extremely ill-tempered speeches.

Mr. Wyatt: I am sure that the noble Lord's reputation for even temper and calmness in Debate will not in any way have been damaged by the reference which I made to him.

Earl Winterton: What references are they? What have I said?

Mr. Wyatt: It is within the recollection of everybody in the House how kindly the noble Lord has taken to any reference to Mr. Rank during the Debate.
We have had the usual negative speech from the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who attacked the Government for failing to do anything about the film industry, without being able in any way to indicate a policy of his own. He complained particularly today that no long-term policy had been brought forward by the Government. I suggest to him that one of the main reasons why we have no long-term policy for the industry is the state of the parties in this House, because the only possible long-term policy is completely to overhaul the entire industry, which would require a great deal of legislation and the smashing of the Rank Organisation's and the A.B.C. Organisation's monopolistic control of the industry.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot seemed to be under the impression that the Plant Report had said that the main thing wrong with the industry was that the Entertainments Duty was too high. I will quote from the beginning from the summary of conclusions and recommendations in the Report. The House will see that that is not at all so. It says:
The fundamental contention throughout our report is that the introduction of more active competitive trading at each stage in the process of film distribution and exhibition is an essential condition for any real revival of prosperity in the industry.
It goes on to say that the whole of the recommendations and conclusions are based on that contention and that they have nothing whatever to do with the Entertainments Duty except as a very subsidiary element in some of the reforms which the Committee would like to see introduced into the industry. The main worry of the Committee was not the


Entertainments Duty but the way in which the industry is organised. Many of us feel that their recommendations for dealing with that do not go far enough, but their diagnosis is the same as that of anyone else who has examined the industry with an at all impartial mind.
I want to refer to the Report itself, for very little reference has been made to it this afternoon. I believe that, on the whole, the Film Finance Corporation has done a good job. It has kept the industry going. It is clear that without it the industry would have come to an end. The Report is, however, defective in one or two respects. For instance, it is not quite frank with us about the loan to the British Lion Corporation. Quite clearly the £3 million lent to it was spent on a great deal more than is shown in the Report.
The schedule of loans in Appendix D shows that only 20 films have been made as a result of this loan to the corporation. That would mean that on an average the Film Finance Corporation put £150,000 into each film, which is a tremendous sum of money for an outside body to put into each film being made by another corporation or by an ordinary film producing company. In the first place, it would suggest that no money at all of their own was used by the British Lion Corporation or by London Films and the other people connected with it. but that cannot be the case.
I cannot believe that the Film Finance Corporation is so insane as to hand them £150,000 per film without requiring them to put up any money of their own. It must obviously cover a great deal more than is shown in the schedule. I think that many people know that what it did first of all was to pay off the past debts on failed productions by the Korda set-up in London Films and then enable it to continue the production which it had on hand and launch out into fresh production. That being the case, it ought to be stated here. We ought to know how much of the phenomenal waste of money on a film like, for instance, "Bonny Prince Charlie," which cost three-quarters of a million pounds, was borne by the National Film Finance Corporation. It is not shown in the Report.
Whereas the Corporation was too bold in helping the British Lion Film Corporation

without sufficient safeguards to make sure that it could control the extravagance centred round the film companies associated with that organisation, it has not been bold enough in helping other independent producers and providing "front money," as it is called, for people who have not the same resources as A.B.C. or London Films. It is encouraging, however, that at last the Corporation have decided to put forward nearly all the money for the film to be made by A.C.T. which will encourage other groups of independent producers. I do not believe it is true that a monopoly of genius exists in the Rank Organisation and the A.B.C. together with their monopoly of ownership of the studios and the cinemas.
Another criticism I would make of the Film Finance Corporation is that it does not seem to make up its mind clearly as to what type of film it wants to back. In one paragraph in the Report it says that it made several small loans to rather small companies and it half suggests the films were of a somewhat doubtful quality. Anyone looking at films made by Exclusive Films, the Mancunian Film Corporation or the Renown Film Corporation will agree with this half-admission in the Report that these films were not particularly desirable or necessary. However, perhaps they were a safeguard from the point of view of the Corporation that it would at least get its money back, as they were cheap to make and would be shown regionally. The Corporation ought to think more of quality because this is a Government-backed Corporation and it should only be backing those films likely to enhance the prestige of the film industry.
Again, it is difficult for the Film Finance Corporation to act as judges of quality. It is true that the managing director is a competent business man, Mr. Lawrie, and the Chairman, Lord Reith, is also most competent, but it is not fair to put upon them the task of choosing the films and making up their minds about quality. It was a move in the right direction to ask Sir Michael Balcon to advise them over the scripts they should select and produce. At the same time it is rather an invidious position in which to put Sir Michael Balcon, who is a person of great integrity and justified reputation in the industry, because he is also concerned with running Ealing Film Studios.
Naturally, therefore, any producer who has failed to get the Ealing Film Studios to take up his film is hardly likely to be encouraged to go to the Film Finance Corporation and ask Sir Michael Balcon to consider it in another capacity. It is an absurd position. Anyone who has to advise on the films to be accepted by National Film Finance Corporation should have nothing to do with producing and making films. He cannot say at Ealing, "This is a bad idea" and then, before the Film Finance Corporation, say "I am prepared to put Government money into it although I would not put my own in it. "That will give no encouragement to the people in the industry. What is required is a paid expert panel, composed perhaps of only one person, somebody of recognised reputation in the industry who leaves his job in order to take on precisely that function of helping to select these films.
Another criticism I would make of the structure of the Corporation is that it does not back second feature or documentary short films in the way in which it ought to be able to back them. I do not think that is the fault of the Corporation.
We get the interesting case of the "This Modern Age" series now being forced to come to an end by the economies which are being undertaken by the Rank Organisation. This is a case in point where assistance would be justified because, although the Rank Organisation has been pretty bad in many respects, this is one of the good things it has done. As soon as economies are made, they stop the only good thing they have done and throw it to the wolves. It ought to be helped by the Film Finance Corporation.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham, continually informs us that the Rank Organisation is so loath to make films that it will not approach the Corporation for assistance.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry that the hon. Member is constantly making statements alleging that I have made statements which I have not made. All I said was—and I raised a point of order upon it—that I wondered how the Rank Organisation could be discussed in this Debate to the extent which it has been, in view of the fact that it had not applied for money from the Corporation.

Mr. Wyatt: It is a well-known fact that the Rank Organisation has cut down its production, but the noble Lord said that it does not want to come to the Corporation to ask for money to help it to in crease production—

Earl Winterton: I did not say that.

Mr. Wyatt: —thereby suggesting that they did not want to make any more films.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I cannot give way again The noble Lord, without making a speech on these occasions, manages to get a good deal of the Floor.

Earl Winterton: I understand that the hon. Member refuses to give way—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has the Floor and refuses to give way. The noble Lord, therefore, cannot make an interjection.

Mr. Wyatt: I have already given way a good deal, and I think the noble Lord has made his point. The Rank Organisation does not want to produce more films because it is short of money, yet it will not go to the one body which can help it by providing money to make more films.

Earl Winterton: I never said any such thing.

Mr. Wyatt: It is a fairly reasonable inference from what the noble Lord has said. Here is a case of a series of films which ought to be helped by the Corporation. I hope that when the series is finally abandoned by the Rank Organisation, that organisation will go to the Corporation to get that assistance.
The one thing which is obvious to everyone here this afternoon is that the loan will not only not save the film industry, but will not save the Corporation, because within a very short time the industry will be back in much the same position as it is today. This £1 million is simply not enough to tide over the industry for a very long time. The reason for this is the basic fact, which was brought out by the Plant Report, that exhibitors on the whole do their best not to show British films because American films are much more profitable. We all know that American films. having taken their own home market, come over


here and are sold at cut prices to exhibitors who have no more patriotism than other sections of the business world, and who are only too willing to accept cut price films rather than take the more expensive home product. They have, therefore, no incentive to show British films, and they have no wish to do so.
It has been, as everybody knows, with the utmost reluctance that those on the exhibiting side of the industry have been persuaded to arrive at the arrangement by which an adjustment of the Entertainments Duty will benefit producers as much as it will benefit themselves. Their protest is that they are getting only £1,500,000 out of it and that producers are getting the same amount. The exhibitors say that this proportion is wholly wrong and that they ought to get four or five times as much as the producers. It is because of this attitude of the exhibitors that there has been reluctance in reaching this agreement
The attitude of the exhibitors exemplified in the classic example of the organisation about which the noble Lord is so sensitive. The Rank Organisation protests—[Interruption.] I have no doubt that the noble Lord is just demonstrating his well-known good temper. The Rank Organisation has said that what is killing film production in this country is the Entertainments Duty, yet, when Mr. Rank presented the last annual report of his company, he said, referring to Odeon Properties, Limited, and Odeon Associated Theatres, Limited:
Odeon Associated, like Odeon Properties, is not concerned with the results of film production and it follows therefore as long as"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think this arises on the Report.

Mr. Wyatt: The connection, as I am trying to show, is that the Film Finance Corporation cannot be helped, even by £1 million, so long as the present state of affairs continues in which exhibitors do not want to show films which the Corporation makes. The Rank Organisation, as is well known, is the largest exhibitor in the country. If exhibitors under present circumstances refuse to show films made by the Corporation we have to consider whether we should give them the £1 million or not.

Earl Winterton: It has been given.

Mr. Wyatt: The main exhibitor in this country, as is well known, is the Rank Organisation, which owns the greatest number of halls. The question of whether or not to provide the Corporation with the money is involved here. Mr. Rank said:
As long as exhibition continues to be a profitable business, there should be no doubt as to the companies' ability to meet the obligations of its prior charges.
As a matter of fact, those two companies, which only own cinemas and do not exhibit films, showed a profit of £770,000 million in the last year and if the Entertainments Duty had been crippling the business they could not have made such a profit. They did extremely well. It is Mr. Rank's job not to make films himself, but to get them cheaply from America, by which he saves a great deal of money. The only way in which to deal with the situation is eventually by legislation for a long-term policy for which the right hon. Member for Aldershot was asking this afternoon. As my hon. Friends on this side of the House have said, that way is to set up a separate circuit of 50 cinemas in London and 50 elsewhere in the country in order to break the power of these monopolies to cripple the film industry and stop home production.
In the meantime we are being too squeamish about the general propaganda theme that we should keep the cinemas open at all costs. There is a prevalent notion that if the cinemas were closed for a time it would be an unmitigated disaster and the Government would be thrown out by the people; but if it happened that a number of cinemas were being forced to close down because American products were not available to them and because the British film organisations had not yet begun to make British films, then the big organisations would begin to make British films. It is no good whatever trying to support the British film industry, as is referred to in the Report, by juggling with the quota, because whatever quota is fixed, it is always evaded.
What we have to do is to limit the number of films coming from America and if we say only 30 or 40 are to be allowed to come in one year, that would compel the Rank Organisation to make British films or close its cinemas. and


would compel the Film Finance Corporation's films to be shown in those cinemas. [Laughter.] The noble Lord laughs because he knows that as long as our majority is as narrow as it is, we cannot produce legislation of that kind.

Earl Winterton: I am not the only one on this side of the House, or on the side on which the hon. Member sits.

Mr. Wyatt: At any rate, we have a mutual interest. I submit that it is quite useless to try to tinker with this industry any more in the sort of way we have been trying. We can put money into the Corporation, but it will not solve the long-term problem and, as long as it is not possible to introduce legislation and introduce a national circuit run on B.B.C. lines, it is essential to stop American films coming in in the present form of dumped competition. The only way to do that is to limit the number of films we allow in every year, and we could do it on a one-for-one basis and say that we would take one American film for every English film shown in America. The Rank Organisation and A.B.C. would then feel the squeeze on them and would set about their proper job of making British films in England.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: If the film industry is short of imaginative script writers I suggest that they call upon the services of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). I have no time to go into the innumerable distortions of reality in which he indulged. He was, however, right in saying that this Debate is much the same as other film Debates and that the performers were more or less the same. We have had the usual competition between the hon. Members for Aston and Devonport (Mr. Foot) to see who could display the greater amount of prejudice. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Devonport usually beats the hon. Member for Aston, sometimes by a canter and sometimes only by a short head. I think that the hon. Member for Aston has done better this time than on previous occasions.
We have today listened to a statement by the President of the Board of Trade on the annual Report of the Film Finance Corporation, and I should think that on the whole those who are responsible for directing its activities will be thankful

for getting off so lightly as they have done. We can, on the whole, commend the chairman and the managing director on having made a good job of a very difficult job. That sentiment is reflected in the views of Members on both sides of the House. The President gave one rather false impression in his speech which I am sure he will be anxious to correct. He grouped Sir Michael Balcon with the part-time members of the 'board. Sir Michael Balcon receives no remuneration for his services. I think that the President will see that it was possible to draw from his remarks the conclusion that Sir Michael Balcon was one of the part-time members of the board.
I wish to refer to Sir Michael Balcon because the hon. Member for Aston made a quite unnecessary attack upon him. Sir Michael Balcon does not get producers to produce films for him. He has his own producers, and they have scripts submitted to them in the ordinary way. It is wrong to suggest, as does the hon. Member for Aston, that Sir Michael Balcon would exhibit prejudice towards any man. I think we can be grateful that a man so conspicuously successful as Sir Michael Balcon is giving his services free of charge in this way.

Mr. Wyatt: I would not like the suggestion to go out, unchallenged, that I was attacking Sir Michael Balcon. I said that he was a person of great integrity and reputation but that he was connected with a large film organisation, and if someone went to his film organisation, Ealing Studios, and there failed to get his script accepted, he would not be encouraged to go to see Sir Michael Balcon, acting in another capacity, and ask for support for something which had been rejected by Ealing Studios.

Mr. Shepherd: Then the only alternative is to have someone who is outside the business or no one at all. In my view. Sir Michael Balcon is a better alternative than either of those two.
There has been a good deal of criticism today of the loan to the British Lion Film Corporation, and it is obvious that the President will have to tell the House much more about it than it now knows. The National Film Finance Corporation have indicated in the Report that the circumstances of the liaison between them


and British Lion are not really satisfactory. What the House wants to know, and what the President will have to tell us, is what, steps have been taken to remove the difficulties which are referred to in the Report? To what extent at this moment is it possible to get a budget from the British Lion Film Corporation which is not exceeded? To what extent do these difficulties remain in relation to budgets of films in production? To what extent have they been coped with? The House wishes to know more about this situation before the Debate ends.
We have learned from the Report that a loss of £750,000 is provided for on this year's working. I hope that when the President replies he will be frank with the House and will indicate that this provision will be wholly inadequate to meet the real loss which this Corporation will have to face on its working so far. It is quite wrong to persuade the House that on the existing basis, £750,000 can possibly cover what has, in fact, been lost. To appreciate the situation in the film industry the President ought to give some idea of what are the total losses involved on present working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in an excellent speech this afternoon, denied that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward any positive policy and it is true that the right hon. Gentleman, though he had three reels to give us today, did not show a first feature of any interest at all. My suspicion is that the President has lost the battle with the Chancellor. I do not think that any man who knows as much about the film industry as does the President of the Board of Trade can come to the House and say that this proposal, which is a slight alteration in the incidence of taxation, represents a real and substantial contribution towards the welfare of the industry. I do not think that he believes this solution is satisfactory.
During the time he has been President of the Board of Trade, since 1948, the right hon. Gentleman has seen a deterioration in the industry until we have reached a situation today when the morale of the entire industry is very low indeed. Something has to be done to raise the level to a higher pitch and give some hope to people in the industry—

many of whom have given their life to it. I say that the proposal put forward by the President today does not give that hope to the industry which it ought to receive.
We have had a lot of criticism of the industry, and I agree that its past record of extravagance lays it very open to attack. But I would urge the House to appreciate that the industry is doing a great deal to reduce its costs. In 1947, the average first feature film cost something like £250,000 to £300,000 to produce. The films being produced today cost, on the average, something like £125,000. When one appreciates that that reduction in cost has taken place during a time when generally costs have risen, one appreciates that the industry has been making serious efforts to get down its costs to a reasonable level. But I would warn the House that this downward pressure on costs in the British film industry is having, and will have in the future, a dangerous effect upon quality.
What is the position today? There is—and this is an established fact—a positive restriction of choice of scripts because of the cost factor. One has to consider not whether a story is good, but whether it is possible to put it over within the limits of a £120,000 production figure. Good scrips and good stories are difficult to get. We have to appreciate that film producers are limited in their choice of what they will take because they cannot spend more than £120,000 or so upon a film.
It is not true, as was stated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, that in the British film industry there is an absolute wealth of stories and scripts, or that we have a wonderful array of producers and directors who can turn out, ad lib, films of great quality and international attraction. I wish it were true, but the plain truth is that we have a very limited amount of real talent. I doubt whether we have in this country directors and producers capable of producing more than eight or 10 international class films in any one year—eight would probably be the maximum that they could produce in the international class. It is doubtful that whether we have a capacity to produce more than 30 first-class films. It is quite wrong to believe, as was stated by the hon. Member for Devonport, that it is only wicked capitalists working in


the background who stop films from being produced.
The selection of films is limited by the stories. We cannot expect to get good story writers in the British film industry if there is no living there. The right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to have better stories and scripts, but how can we get men to give their lives to the industry if they can never be certain of their jobs? If the right hon. Gentleman had to choose between writing stories for the industry or taking a similar type of job with a newspaper at a guaranteed salary, which would he choose in present circumstances? That is a choice which confronts lots of people. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to attack the absence of people with talent when the industry does not provide a living. When it provides a living we will have the people to do the job.
The right hon. Gentleman made a great show about the concessions which the Government had so kindly made to the industry. He said, in a peroration of impressive quality, that all must play their part, including the Government. What a magnificent gesture the Government have made to the industry in the past few weeks. What great sacrifices they have shown in their offering to the industry. Out of a total of £38 million, which they extract every year they are prepared, in this moment of generosity, to give back £300,000—less than 1 per cent. This offer is a disgrace to the Government.
I express a purely personal opinion when I say that I regret very deeply that the industry have agreed to accept what the Government have offered. No good can come from this industry accepting in a spirit of desperation what has been offered. That is what has happened. The Chancellor has driven desperate men to accept something less than what they know is necessary to get them out of trouble. This trouble will recur, and more and more Debates will take place in the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was right when he said that no good is done to the industry by discussing its affairs at length in the House month after month. If anything is to be done it ought to be done in a manner which will fit the difficulty and in a way which will make certain that we do not have to come here again and again to get relief.

Many people have said that if only we had better production and more economy we would be able to put the industry on its feet. That is a lot of nonsense. People who have great skill in this business and who have been successful, people like Ealing Studios, who study economy if anybody does, cannot make the business pay. Even when they have a long series of successes unprecedented in the industry, they still have to write off enormous sums. The Associated British Picture Corporation, of which an hon. Member opposite is vice-chairman, has recently been into British film production. They do not throw money away, they are very tight with their money. Although they do not say much about it, they have had a rather devastating experience in the last 12 months.
The truth is that, in the existing state of affairs, where 40 per cent. of the revenue goes to the Government and where there is Government control of the price of seats, it is practically impossible to produce films at a profit. Many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have asked why, if beer and cigarettes cost so much, we should not put a heavy tax upon films. We are not discussing the ethics of taxation, but I put it to the President of the Board of Trade, who has failed in his battle with the Chancellor, that we should not tax an industry to the point where it cannot produce its unit product at a profit. If the film industry could produce its product and pay the Government £80 million and still make a living, it might be justifiable to tax it to that extent. The truth is that it is impossible to produce films at present prices and to make them pay.
I want to say a word or two, in conclusion, about the prospects of the British film industry. I have said that I believe the offer made by the President is wholly inadequate, and I would make this plea to the right hon. Gentleman. Let him collaborate again with the Chancellor between now and the Report stage of the Bill, and try to put on the Order Paper something that will really restore this industry to a proper footing. It is useless proceeding with half-measures. I believe the British film industry contains quite exceptional ability, and that we have something to offer to the world. Moreover, I believe that the new trends in cinema-going will help us in the near future.
Hon. Members may have heard that Mr. Goldwyn came over here a short time ago, and had some most interesting observations to make about film production. He said that what struck him about modern film production was that the "star" system was on its way out, and that we could not maintain bad films with good "stars"; secondly, that stories were becoming more and more difficult to obtain; and, thirdly, that cinema-goers on the whole tended to want a more intelligent form of entertainment. I believe that all these factors are likely to be favourable to the British film industry. If the "star" system goes out in favour of technical and artistic quality, so that the quality of the story determines the value of the film, we could do much better to beat the Americans than we are doing at the moment. If we no longer have to face internationally publicised names if artistic merit is to prevail, and if cinema-goers demand more intelligent entertainment than they did 10 or 15 years ago, I think we can supply the demand.
The industry has a product which is typical of the country, and we do, in the main, provide films which are slightly more intelligent than those we get from the United States. Therefore, we have a chance at present, because this period of difficulty is clearing out of the industry many of the elements of no particular value to it. We no longer have any illusions as to what we can do. We know that we can only produce 30 or 40 reasonable films in a year, and we know it is an extremely difficult art, but, for the first time for a very long period, the industry has a feeling that it is on a basis on which it can see the road ahead, if only the Government will give it a chance. There is a great chance for the industry today, if only it can be given the opportunity of making a living.
All that I ask the Government to do is to make it possible for this industry to make a living and a profit. The function of Government is to see industry so organised that intelligent men and women working in it can make a living for themselves, and that is not the situation in the British film industry today. If the Government will only assist, instead of being so harsh to the industry, and if it does not plunder it as it is doing now, all these problems and difficulties which we talk about today will be resolved.

We shall not solve these difficulties by appointing a commission, whether paid or unpaid, but, if the industry can be made profitable and the people working in it can be assured of the opportunity to make a reasonable living, this industry can go ahead.
I believe that the industry is now in a position which, if the Government will give it a chance, is perhaps better than it has known before. We have the feeling that we now know where we stand; if only we can get relief from the unequal burden of taxation we can go ahead, quite sure which way our path lies. Therefore, I hope that between now and next week the right hon. Gentleman will get in touch with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see if proposals more reasonable and of more lasting value to the industry than those he has made today can be worked out. Unless he does something along those lines, when the second annual report of the National Film Finance Corporation is debated in this House a very lamentable financial story will have to be told.

9.11 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I do not propose to stand between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the House for more than a few moments. We are all very anxious to hear what he has to say and to listen to the answers which I am sure he is going to give in reply to the very searching questions put to him. But since there have been references to myself and to the Rank Organisation, and since I have been accused by an hon. Gentleman opposite of losing my temper and making a number of statements which bore no resemblance to anything I ever said—I do not complain of that—I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point I am about to make, which is a very serious one. If he is thinking of extending the ambit of the money, so to speak, which we are discussing today, I hope he will not forget the qualities of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for producing a "Comic Cuts" cartoon. I cannot think of anybody more suitable, especially if he made a personal appearance on the screen.
I only rise to say on behalf of those of us who are interested in this matter that I agree in the main with everything which my hon. Friend the Member for


Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has said. Those of us who are interested in the industry, including the hon. Gentleman opposite who occupies a very important position in it, shall reserve our observations on the question of the reduction of the Entertainments Duty until we come to the new Clause which will be brought up in the Debate on the Finance Bill on Monday. I only want to say that my hon. Friends and I are disappointed that the amount is not greater, but we shall discuss that more fully when the new Clause is brought up.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson: I can only reply to the points raised with the leave of the House. I hope I have that leave because this has certainly been an interesting Debate, and one to which one would like to reply. It was not until a few moments ago that I knew we were to have the pleasure of a sustained intervention by the noble Lord. We have had a number of sporadic and spontaneous interventions in the course of today, and it has become clear that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) were finally too much for the noble Lord, and that he found it necessary to intervene.
May I say how delighted I am that he did so, because in his concluding remarks we had the only constructive proposal which has come from the party opposite in the whole Debate, namely, his suggestion that there should be an effort by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston, in the production of a "Comic Cuts column," and I am certainly prepared to recommend that to the Corporation. In view of their growing reputation for financing films of great value, I am sure they will insist that it be a double act of cross-talk from both sides, and that the noble Lord, if he is not fully under contract to the Rank Organisation, will be invited to take part.
A number of offers have been made to various hon. Members to enter the script-writing industry. I would suggest the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who has shown some signs of qualifying for such a post in that he has at least shown the quality of imagination, even if he has not the quality of having any great grip of the problems of the industry. In his imagination he asserted

a number of things I am supposed to have had some fictitious battle with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to be the result of seeing rather too many exciting films which had left a mark on his mind.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House he really has not had the courage to fight this battle at all?

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's grasp of the processes of Government seems to be even less than his grasp of the processes of the film industry because, going back into history, he should have known that it is not conventional in this House to disclose just what fights and disagreements have gone on between individual Ministers and the Treasury. However, I shall deal with the point he has at heart in a few moments.
A number of hon. Members and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) have implied that there are too many Debates on the film industry and the suggestion was made, I think by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) that there is too much taking up of the plant to see how the roots are getting on. I am amazed at the apparent signs of schizophrenia among hon. Members opposite when they talk about this. If it had been a nationalised industry that was involved they could not have had too many Debates. Ever since the nationalisation of the coal industry there have been demands for more discussions in order to dig up the roots of that industry to see how they are getting on.
I am surprised, therefore, that there has been this rather churlish attitude to the action of the Government in providing Government time for discussion of the first Report of a national corporation. I thought that the Opposition would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss this Report. It is not very easy to discuss the Report of this Corporation without discussing the film industry which forms the background of its activities.

Mr. Butcher: Before the right hon. Gentleman claims so much virtue in allocating time to this Debate he should remember that he was allowed a very easy


passage on the Second Reading of the Bill in order that the House should come to this Report.

Mr. Wilson: I shall not claim too much virtue for that fact. It was hoped by the Government, and certainly the Opposition co-operated very agreeably in this matter, that the first Report of the Corporation should be marked by Debate in this House. I seem to remember the noble Lord the Member for Horsham wagging a minatory finger during the last Debate. If he will look up HANSARD he will see what he said on that occasion. I remember his warning us that, when the first Report was published, he or his hon. Friends would have something to say about certain aspects of the Corporation's policy. In view of his interest in the subject it would have been ungracious of the Government not to have provided this time and the opportunity for him.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing me—and it is a very natural confusion—with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I rose to speak on an Amendment of an hon. Friend behind me, the other day, waved his hand to me in the friendliest way, called me across by my Christian name and said: "For something's sake, sit down."

Mr. Wilson: There are many distinguished persons with whom I might confuse the noble Lord, both inside and outside the industry, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not one of them. I assure him that, if he looks up what he said, he will find a somewhat threatening reference to what would be said when this Debate took place.
The right hon. Member for Aldershot seemed to be disappointed at the absence of any long-term policy for the film industry from the Treasury Bench. He also commented, by use of analogies which seemed almost to verge on the indelicate, on the period of months which had elapsed between the conception of the Plant Report and the production of policy by the Government. But I must remind him that, in fact, the Plant Report, which was debated here in December last, had to be referred to the industry for its comments before even any policy could be worked out. Had I come and announced

a policy without consulting all four sides of the industry the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain.
In fact, after receiving some quite contradictory advice from different sections of the industry about it, it was referred to the Cinematograph Films Council, who in turn set up their sub-committee which produced a report, to which I have already paid tribute this afternoon as a welcome approach to the problem of the industry on the basis of overriding purely sectional views. That report was not, in fact, agreed to by the Films Council until 1st June, so there has not been a very long period of delay between the consideration of this problem by the industry, which took several months—I make no complaint of that—and the statement I made in the House this afternoon.
Certainly no glimmering of a long-term policy for the film industry came out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He made it quite clear that he did not regard it as the job of the Opposition to produce a policy on anything. That is not a new suggestion, of course. We get it in every Debate in this House, and I make no complaint about it. I was, however, rather interested in one of his more imaginative passages when he suggested that the new proposals for the tax and pooling arrangements which I described this afternoon, and which seems to have been the subject of violent criticism from a number of hon. Members opposite, chiefly on grounds of inadequacy, were first worked out at some mysterious dinner or gathering of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), the noble Lord and others.
If it comforts them to feel that they played any part in drawing up this scheme I have no objection, but I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that this scheme was worked out primarily in the Treasury, and that it followed an approach to the Treasury by certain of the film exhibitors who suggested that they should be able to put up seat prices by rather more than the ld. about which we were talking today, and that they should retain a considerably higher proportion of the increased revenue which would result from that without any loss to Entertainments Duty and, indeed, without anything like the same proportion going to the producers.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Plant Report and to passages about Entertainments Duty in it which I recall were also the subject of part of his speech in December last. He quoted that section of the Plant Report which said that it remains abundantly clear that the average receipts fell far short of the average cost of production, or words to that effect. That point has been well taken, I think, by the Government in the proposals which I outlined this afternoon. I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite, who for some time have been referring to the Entertainments Duty position, will agree with what I have said on a number of occasions, that simply to reduce the Entertainments Duty would not have been a helpful way of dealing with this situation. I am sure they agree with that; £1 million would only have given £100,000 to production.
I noted that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) said that the crisis was due to the Treasury taking too much. I hope I am not misrepresenting him; I think he used that phrase. The Entertainments Duty has really become a grand and glorious alibi for the industry in the crisis into which they have got. We heard very little about it in Debates in this House until just about a year ago, before these Reports were produced, when Mr. Rank made his remarks about Entertainments Duty. They were dealt with in the annual report of an organisation whose name I had better not mention, or the noble Lord the Member for Horsham will rise to his feet once again.
We heard very little about the Entertainments Duty in the Debates in this House until the last few months. I do not deny that the Plant Report and, as I volunteered this afternoon in case it had been forgotten, the Gater Report drew attention to the position of the Entertainments Duty in the industry, but to suggest that the film crisis is due to the Entertainments Duty is, I think, completely to misunderstand the position. I am quite certain that if the Treasury had taken less out of the industry the crisis would have arisen just the same because far more would have been spent in increased extravagance in the industry.

Mr. Shepherd: Quite apart from the varied views of the course of the history of the film industry in the last three or

four years, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a clear answer to this question. Does he, as President of the Board of Trade, consider that it is possible to produce a film of reasonably average quality in this country at a cost of considerably less than £120,000, and, if the return to the producer for a film of that character is at the moment only £70,000, how does he expect the producer to live?

Mr. Wilson: I think one thing which has become quite clear to me from the returns I have been trying to examine from all the producers is that it is quite impossible to get any average figure or any generalisation on this basis. I only wish it could be done. I have myself asked what were the accurate figures corresponding to those which the hon. Member has just suggested and it is very difficult indeed to ascertain them, particularly when we use the distinction which he himself drew, talking at the same time about films in the international market and those in the national market. I will answer what I think is behind the question, because I believe the question itself cannot be answered.

Mr. Shepherd: Why not?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman asked me what the figures were and I think it is impossible to give them. What he had in mind, if he will permit me to say so, was this: did I consider that the proposal I have announced today will be sufficient to bridge the gap between production costs and the revenue accruing to the producer. I think that is what he wants to know.

Mr. Shepherd: I am asking whether, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, it is possible to produce a film which will meet the standard I have mentioned at anything less than £120,000. I am referring to an average film producing £500,000 at the box-office in this country. That is the question I ask.

Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Member is putting a purely meaningless question with his talk about the average film. I keep asking producers to give me figures of the average film and they say that there is no such thing. If he is asking whether it is possible to produce a film with a high box-office return at the figure he has mentioned, then of course I would say that


it is. It has happened and will happen again. Whether it is possible to maintain it film by film over a period of time is, I confess, very difficult to answer but, answering the question which I think is behind his question, I would say that in my view the proposals I outlined this afternoon are sufficient to bring the industry on to a sound and secure economic basis provided they will take the steps open to them to put their own house in order.
As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman interrupted, I am quite certain that if the Treasury had taken less from the industry there would still have been a crisis because more would have been spent. I suggest that this is borne out by something which the hon. Member for Cheadle himself said—that one of the reasons for the reduction in expenditure and the improvement in control over production costs has been the difficult time through which the industry has been passing. If that time had been made easier by a different tax policy in these years, then I am quite certain that that improvement would not have taken place.
A number of questions have been asked today about the position of the loan to the British Lion Corporation. The right hon. Member for Aldershot, the hon. Member for Cheadle and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), asked why three-fifths of the money had gone to British Lion. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston went on to say that he hoped that if any more money went to British Lion their estimates would be a good deal better in the future than in the past and that they would not be 50 per cent. out. I thought I had explained that earlier today. It is certainly true, and it is made clear in the report, that the loan required to get the British Lion Corporation into full production was a good deal higher than we originally contemplated, and that, I think, is something of a commentary on the position British Lion were in at the time the National Film Finance Corporation came into the picture.
I quite agree that if we had been thinking in accord with the general canons of financial procedure of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke—quite rightly, if I may say so—or if we had been thinking in narrow terms as to the security of this

money, which the right hon. Gentleman himself never expected to see again when we passed the original Measure—he said so—if we had been thinking in those terms, then it would have been wrong for the National Film Finance Corporation to lend a penny to the British Lion Corporation until it had really got the whole of its accounts on a satisfactory basis, until it had secured complete and adequate control over its productions and over its budgets, and so on.
If that had been done I am quite certain that the first person who would have complained would have been the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, who would have said we had got to a crisis in the film industry through a policy of not doing anything, or of doing something only too little and too late. The National Film Finance Corporation took a risk. It was a calculated risk, and they have been very frank about it in their Report. They put money into the British Lion Corporation to get it going and avert a calamity to British film production by so doing.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is it a fact that the Treasury had already promised a large loan to that company before the British Film Finance Corporation came into being?

Mr. Wilson: I am not sure that I can confirm the exact phrase that the Treasury had promised money to the company. However, it is certainly true that it had been decided by the Treasury that money should be lent to the British Lion Corporation before the organising company was established. That was at the time when we had failed to find finance within the City—approaches had been made to certain City organisations to lend money to this company—even against a partial Government guarantee, because at that time the position was that even the Rank Organisation was also running into some difficulty—the noble Lord will not mind my saying that—and outside the Rank Organisation the greater number of independent producers were associated, directly or indirectly, with the British Lion Corporation, and the loan seemed to us the quickest and surest way of preventing the complete breakdown of production.
The noble Lord, quite correctly, commented in answer to the hon. Member for


Holland with Boston that, of course, no money had gone to the Rank Organisation. The noble Lord says it has not in fact asked for any loan from the National Film Finance Corporation—and, at least, that fact has prevented anyone with script writing ambitions getting up today and accusing me of putting another nickel in the Odeon.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston asked me about the progress of our negotiations with Mr. Eric Johnston. I think I should be going very wide of this Report if I were to answer that in any detail, but I can say—so far as this has a bearing on this Report, because co-production, to use the American expression, and their films produced over here will have some bearing on the position of the film industry and, therefore, on that of the National Film Finance Corporation—that, as has already been announced, the Government made final proposals to the American film industry as to the course of the Anglo-American Film Agreement for the next two years, those proposals have been flown to the United States for consideration, and we are urgently awaiting the reply, and I understand from the latest messages I have received that Mr. Eric Johnston and Governor Annall may be coming back about the middle of next month for further consideration.
There was a question asked by an hon. Member in relation to these talks. Certainly, the question of a unit programme is relevant to the financial position not only of the film industry but of the National Film Finance Corporation, and certainly in these discussions we made a great point in saying that, in our view, this unit programme, this composite programme arrangement operated by the American companies, ought to come to an end.
While I am on that, perhaps I should say to the hon. Member for St. Albans—who accused me of having an obsession about first-feature films and not enough interest in the short and documentary producers—that I accept all he says about their being a training ground for producers who will later produce first-feature films, and being a very important part of our screen entertainment. But I think he is going much too far when he suggests that we could meet the needs of our own screens on the basis of the

cinemas being kept open by an encouragement of that side of the industry, because however important documentaries are—and I quite agree with most of what he said about them—we cannot fill the screens, as the noble Lord will agree, on the basis of second-feature and short and documentary films: the people will not go, and, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot made very plain, the box-office must be the final test so far as this industry is concerned.

Mr. J. Grimston: Would the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that? Is it not possible to increase the quota above the figure of 25 per cent., or whatever it is now?

Mr. Wilson: There has been no criticism of the quota being too low, but the quota of first-feature and supporting programmes is fixed on the basis of what the industry can produce. If I saw any sign that there was to be an improvement in production I would certainly give consideration to the question of the quota. As I have already said, there is a need for some further assistance and some further consideration to be given to that side of the industry's problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot), part of whose speech I was sorry to miss, referred to the position of the script writers and other creative persons in the industry, and said that there were no signs that the National Film Finance Corporation had any plans which would lead to their further employment. Similarly, the hon. Member for Cheadle in a fanciful and hypothetical speech, in which he alternated between offering me work in the film industry and the newspaper industry, commented on the lack of security of script writers, and I agree with what he said in that regard. But this only emphasises, I think, the need for a properly organised production company of the kind described in paragraph 57 of this Report, to which I referred this afternoon. I feel that that, more than any changes on the exhibition side or even in distribution, is fundamental to the maintenance of continuous employment for the script writers and technicians in the industry.
I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) in all he said this evening, the more so as a good


part of his speech consisted of a dual contribution with the noble Lord. I should, however, like to refer to his remarks about Sir Michael Balcon, which the hon. Member for Cheadle took up. I know that my hon. Friend meant no reflection on Sir Michael Balcon's personal position; and indeed he said so very clearly in both his opening remarks and his later intervention. I do want to make it clear to my hon. Friend that Sir Michael Balcon's position is not in any way invidious.
It is quite true, as has been said, that he is not a part-time director. Study of what I said earlier will show that I did not at any time suggest that he was. I paid tribute to him immediately after paying tribute to the part-time directors, and, as I said that the part-time directors certainly earned their very small fees, I think perhaps I ought to have added that, a fortiori, Sir Michael Balcon deserves great tribute for doing so much work for, as the hon. Gentleman said, no payment at all. It is a most valuable thing that this Corporation, consisting of independent financiers and others with no detailed knowledge of the industry, although with a very fine judgment on film problems, are able to be offered technical and specialised advice through the services of Sir Michael Balcon.
But there is not, I suggest, any danger of the sort of thing to which my hon. Friend referred of a producer going along to Ealing Studios with a proposition and having it turned down and then going to the Film Finance Corporation with it and meeting Sir Michael Balcon once again on the doorstep. He probably knows that the Ealing Studios do not produce much on the basis of propositions from outside producers. They have their own production company with a continuous flow of production, and, therefore, the situation does not arise.
I was very disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Cheadle and others suggesting that what is being done in the new financial proposals is inadequate, but I agree with him that with those proposals and with the present position, the film industry has a great chance to re-organise itself. He thinks it will still fail because the proposals do not go far enough, but I do not agree with him. The phrase "chance of a lifetime" has a rather restricted and specialised meaning in film

circles these days, but in a wider sense that phrase could be used accurately to describe the position of the film industry today.
The film industry has been given very considerable assistance and protection by this Government and by previous Governments over a long period of years. It has certainly enjoyed the close interest of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and all parties have shown the very greatest goodwill towards it and the very clearest desire to ensure that it is reestablished on the basis of a sound and secure economic future. In that sense, and bearing in mind the responsibilities which lie on it, I feel that the industry has before it the chance of a lifetime, and if it succeeds in taking that opportunity, I am certain that it will be welcomed by all parties and by all hon. Members.

Question put, and agreed to

Resolved:
That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Film Finance Corporation for year ended 1st March, 1950,

CEYLON (BROADCASTING)

9.42 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I beg to move,
That the Agreement, dated 8th June, 1950, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
The Agreement provides for the preparation by the British Broadcasting Corporation of programmes to be broadcast from Radio Ceylon. Radio Ceylon will probably be better remembered by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as Radio S.E.A.C, which proved of such value to our troops who were fighting in the Far Eastern theatre during the last war.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations announced on 1st March, 1949, that the broadcasting station known as Radio Ceylon was to be transferred by His Majesty's Government to the Government -of Ceylon, and arrangements were then made for the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes to be broadcast from this station. Under the terms of the Agreement approved by the House on


20th January, 1949, the B.B.C. is constructing a high-powered station at Singapore. This should be ready for use early in 1951.
Meanwhile, the British Broadcasting Corporation is broadcasting from a low-power station which is already in existence at Singapore, and the additional transmissions from the powerful station in Ceylon are a valuable supplement to the B.B.C.'s services to South-East Asia and the Far East generally. It will also include the broadcasting of programmes for the British Forces serving in that part of the world.
Since 1st April, 1949, the Ceylon Government have provided all the technical facilities for transmitting the programmes which are prepared by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The cost of the service will be paid by the Corporation out of its grant-in-aid for the overseas services. The present operations of the B.B.C. in Ceylon are covered by an interim agreement made in correspondance between the Corporation and my Department. The Agreement which is before the House is intended to provide for the continuation of the existing service until such time as the new station. Radio Malaya. is available.
The Agreement applies to the services from Ceylon, with necessary adaptations, the provisions relating to the operations of the overseas services from the United Kingdom which are contained in the British Broadcasting Corporation's Licence and Agreement dated 29th November, 1946, and approved by the House on 11th December, 1946. The Licence and Agreement relate solely to stations operating in the British Isles, and for the reason that the existing agreement deals only with stations operating in the British Isles, there has to be this new Agreement to deal with Radio Ceylon, which is now before the House for approval.
This Agreement falls within the scope of Standing Orders Nos. 87 and 88, which provide that all contracts for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond the seas extending over a period of two years and creating a public charge must be approved by a resolution of the House. One point I ought to mention is that the Agreement contains the fair wages Clause which was approved by the House in October, 1946, and which is

incorporated in the Licence of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The latter was approved in December, 1946, and is the basis on which broadcasting takes place at the present time and governs the relationship between my right hon. Friend and the B.B.C. I therefore ask the House to approve the Motion.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: There are several matters in connection with this Agreement which I and my hon. Friends wish to discuss. One of them is a House of Commons matter and the other is the question of our Far Eastern broadcasting.
If I may deal first with the House of Commons matter, it is a surprise to us that the arrangement which we are now asked to approve has been going on for some 15 months, yet this is the first time that the House has been officially informed of it. It is hardly the way to treat the House, and it is the more surprising because during the Debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when approval was given to Command Paper 7584 to set up this new station, two Ministers spoke—himself and the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—and no reference was made then to this arrangement which, if not actually in operation, had already been the subject of correspondence between the Postmaster-General and the B.B.C.
I do not wish to labour this point. but—

Mr. Hobson: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that the Agreement had to be negotiated before it could be laid before the House. Furthermore, the Standing Orders under which the Agreement is placed before the House specify "a period of years." We were not to know precisely when the new station would be ready.

Mr. Grimston: The date when the new station would be ready is beside the point. What I am saying is that these arrangements with the B.B.C., which we are now asked to approve have been in operation for 15 months. Had the Government wished, they could have informed the House much earlier than this and they would have been treating the House with more courtesy had they done so, particularly as an opportunity presented itself on the occasion of the previous Debate


to which I have referred. I say no more, except to ask the House to note what 'has happened, and that we are now asked to sanction something, which we have to sanction, 15 months after it has started.
The other point to which I wish to refer is the very large issue which is raised by the Agreement of the whole question of our broadcasts to the Far East. It is almost superfluous, particularly at present, with what must be in the mind of every hon. Member to over-stress the importance of broadcasting in the Far East. Paragraph 3 (2) of the Agreement sets out the way in which the Government responsibility for overseas broadcasts works. I think I should be giving a fair picture if I said that the Government take responsibility to prescribe the languages and times to be used for foreign broadcasts. It is laid down that the B.B.C. must consult such Departments as are specified by the Postmaster-General. Within this framework, the B.B.C. must then produce broadacsts which are in the national interest.

Mr. Hobson: The period is 8½ hours per day.

Mr. Grimston: That is in the Agreement.

Mr. Hobson: It is an important point.

Mr. Grimston: I quite agree. That happens to be the period that has been put in the Agreement, but I think I am right in saying that the Government have specified that period of 8½ hours. Furthermore, they specify in the manner I have indicated, by saying what languages are to be used and what Departments the B.B.C. must consult in the make-up of the programmes.

The question we now have to ask ourselves is what is the paramount national interest at present in the Far East. I would suggest that it is that the power of the radio should be used to the uttermost to stem the advance of Communism in the Far East. I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House would dispute that.

This raises the question of what type of broadcast is the most suitable and effective for this purpose. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I ask the House for a moment to look at what is now happening in the way of these broadcasts.

I understand that the B.B.C. project Britain, as one might term it, in accordance with what was laid down in the Government White Paper on Broadcasting Policy (Cmd. 6852) of July, 1946. That is the line upon which the B.B.C. is working, and I think it will be useful if I quote to the House exactly what that White Paper lays down. It says:
As far as the content of the overseas services is concerned, the Government consider that great care should be taken to ensure the complete objectivity of the news bulletins which will form the kernel of all overseas broadcasts. The Corporation's reputation for telling the truth must be maintained and the treatment of an item in an overseas news bulletin must not differ in any material respect from its treatment in current news bulletins for domestic listeners.

I think it is important that the House should take note of the framework under which the B.B.C. are at present performing these broadcasts. What we have to note here is that under any reasonable definition this would exclude propaganda.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): indicated dissent.

Mr. Grimston: I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We shall look forward to hearing what he says about that. Speaking not as an expert, but, I hope, with common sense, it seems to me that what will go for a sophisticated listener in Great Britain and impress him, is not necessarily the same sort of thing that should be used in the Far East if we are to use the broadcast to the fullest advantage.
The B.B.C. has no monopoly of broadcasting in the Far East and at present some of the Colonial Governments are carrying on their own broadcast services. I would mention, in particular, Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong. I am told that in both cases while the presentation of news is just as truthful as that which is put out by the B.B.C. it is done in a much more colourful manner and that propaganda is definitely regarded and used by those stations as a necessary function for the end we have in view.
I am told, for instance, that one feature is "This is Communism" which is putting colourfully on the broadcast the sort of thing which can happen under Communism. I understand that that type of propaganda is not done by the B.B.C,


but it is quite evident that the people on the spot in South-East Asia who have control of Colonial broadcasting stations believe that it is the right line. Those stations are much less powerful, and it seems a pity that the more powerful sations operated by the B.B.C. should not be used to put out the type of broadcast and the type of propaganda that those on the spot believe to be the right kind to have the maximum effect in the Far East.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say something on two points and to give an assurance on one. The first is that the Government will, at least, consider whether the type of broadcast which is being put out at present under the Ceylon Agreement and which will be put out later when the new station is in operation is really the type best suited for the end we have in mind. In other words, I ask whether we can afford, in present conditions, to stick to the very high ideal of the B.B.C. at home, with which none of us quarrel, but which at present is not sufficient to do all that is necessary in the Far East.
I should also like an assurance that whatever decision may be reached with regard to the B.B.C. broadcasts when the new station comes into operation both Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong, which are independent of the B.B.C, will be maintained.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Including Radio Ceylon?

Mr. Grimston: Yes.
There is one other small point upon which I seek information. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 (3) of the Agreement he will note that it says:
The Corporation shall obtain any necessary approval of the Government of Ceylon to the schedule of broadcast programmes.
How far that brings the Government of Ceylon into actual control of the programmes turns on what is meant by "the schedule of broadcast programmes." A number of my hon. Friends who have more on-the-spot knowledge of these matters than I have wish to address the House. I would only reiterate that we feel this matter to be of great importance. I repeat that I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here to reply. We feel that the situation with which we are now

confronted in the Far East calls for the maximum impact of the weapon of broadcasting, and, quite frankly, some of us are not satisfied that this will be achieved by what I would describe as somewhat slavish adherence to aloof objectivity.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to permit this Debate to range over a fairly wide field. I do so for two reasons. The first is because we are discussing this always important problem of broadcasting against the very serious background of the Far Eastern situation and the threat of war to the whole world. Therefore, it becomes much more important than it might otherwise have been. The second reason is because of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) has just mentioned—that we find it strange that this Agreement is only now brought before the House although broadcasting has been taking place without the authority of the House of Commons since April, 1949.
I have heard what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said about not knowing how long it would be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether it was a fact that at the time when this House was debating the original Agreement the Government of Ceylon had agreed to grant our Government this facility, and that the Posmaster- General at that time invited the B.B.C. to operate that service. At all events, it seems strange that only now we are asked to sanction this Agreement. Perhaps it is in line with the Government's—

Mr. Hobson: As soon as the Agreement has been reached it has been placed before the House. It could not be placed before the House until agreement was reached. The alternative would have been no broadcasting. The broadcasting took place on the basis of an exchange of letters. Otherwise, there would have been a vacuum.

Mr. Profumo: I am not impressed by what the hon. Gentleman says. Why was agreement not reached earlier? Why was the Government's interest in the matter such that it could make an arrangement only by an exchange of letters? As I was saying, it is in line with the Government's ideas on retrospective legislation to


ask us to agree to something which has been in operation for some time.
My hon. Friends and I welcome this Agreement and the fact that it has been brought about. We hope that the construction of the high-power station in Singapore will be speeded up, and that it will be completed earlier than expected. It is obviously a matter of great importance. Whatever I may now say, I would first state that I have the greatest admiration for senior officials of the B.B.C. I believe them to be doing an extremely good job. During the last two or three years I have had some very close contacts with people there. But my criticism is this, that there is not enough attention and supervision given by the Government to their activities.
Perhaps it might help the House if I spent a moment or two clarifying the broadcasting situation in the Far East. First of all, we have the B.B.C. which is responsible for operating three services; first, the Far Eastern station at Singapore which relays from the Far Eastern and General Overseas Service of the B.B.C. here in England and that is broadcast for about seven-and-a-quarter hours each day in a variety of languages with which I will not trouble the House. Second, we have the direct transmission from this country in the Far Eastern programme which takes up about three-and-three-quarter hours each day. That goes out in many different languages. Third, we have Radio Ceylon relaying the Eastern, Far Eastern and General overseas programme for about eight-and-a-half hours each day, also in a variety of different languages.
The B.B.C. is not the only broadcasting service in the Far East. The Colonial Governments carry on two services which are very important services indeed. There is the Radio Malaya with stations at Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Malacca. In addition there is Radio Hong Kong. On what lines are these separate missiles of the ether being run? The broadcasts from Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong develop much more punch and appeal to their listeners than broadcasts carried out under the auspices of the B.B.C.
Propaganda is carried out in these programmes. They make no bones about it. They believe their job to be one of propaganda

the same way as I believe it to be the job of the B.B.C. to include propaganda in its programmes. After all, we are being asked tonight to sanction expenditure which has already taken place. The amount is not very much, but we are not paying for broadcasts just to amuse the people of the Far East. There must be some object in mind in using the taxpayers' money, and that object should be to influence the minds of the people listening to those programmes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the programmes called "This is Communism." Anyone who has heard that programme, which is run by someone I know very well, will realise that it is a programme of stark reality and is directed to trying to influence the minds of the people listening. Radio Ceylon is, of course, working to the established principles of the B.B.C.s overseas services. I would quote from the Agreement under discussion, page 4, paragraph 3 (2):
The Corporation shall consult and collaborate with the Departments so specified and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding conditions in and the policies of His Majesty's Government towards the countries so prescribed and other countries as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare the broadcast programmes in the national interest.
I believe that under these arrangements there is no certainty that broadcasts will always be entirely in the national interest. I believe that the B.B.C. still has too much independence and too much freedom in this respect.
I will quote from another paper, the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates on 7th August, 1947, paragraph 8:
As stated, however, in paragraph 16 of the original White Paper the Government intend that the Corporation should remain independent in the preparation of programmes for overseas audiences.
It is quite clear that the Corporation is entirely independent in the sending out of this programme. The principal aim of these services has always been what is known as the "Projection of Britain." That is a very good phrase, but it depends upon how it is projected. It must be done with punch. The object has always been to promote an understanding of British life, customs and thought.
The policy of the B.B.C. in these matters has always been to make no distinction


between peoples and Governments. Today, I find that that is wrong. We must, in our broadcasts, make a difference between peoples and Governments. One of the languages in which the broadcasts we are discussing are broadcast is Japanese. If we are to beam our radio on Japan and Korea, is not it vital that we should make a difference between Governments and peoples? In many cases the people of Korea are perfectly all right. In the North it is the Government which is behind them that is wrong. If our radio is to be of any value we must make a difference between peoples and Governments.
In the Far East, this great inflammable part of the world, we must make that difference, and I do not believe that the B.B.C. do that at present. I agree about the importance of absolute truth in news bulletins. That is another matter. A good medium was struck during the war. There must be more striking broadcasts directed towards arresting Communistic tendencies in the listeners. I am not content that this money will be really well spent unless we can be assured about this. I should like to quote two points which are germane to this argument and to which perhaps we could have an answer. On 19th June I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asking what had been the outcome of the discussions with the United States Under-Secretary of State for Public Affairs, and I was told:
The B.B.C. will in due course be advised as to the best means of co-ordinating overseas broadcasting in furtherance of the objectives of the Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th June. 1950; Vol. 476, c. 855–6.]
That was a reference to the Atlantic Treaty. What is meant by the words, "in due course,"? Can we expect in the course of time when broadcasts are going out from Radio Ceylon that there will be a step forward? I hope so very much indeed. When the Secretary of State for the Colonies came back from his tour in the Far East, he assured me, on 21st June, that broadcasting was one of the very important services and that he was taking steps to improve the efficiency of broadcasting and would be providing assistance from this country to that area. He could not have been referring to the assistance which we are discussing tonight, because that is already provided.

I wonder what assistance is to be provided and when it will come. I hope that it will be in the near future.
On page 4 of the Agreement we find the statement:
The Corporation shall obtain any necessary approval of the Government of Ceylon to the schedule of broadcast programmes.
It is obvious that there must be that safeguard. But it is also perfectly plain that ultimately the Government of Ceylon will be responsible for the broadcasts which go out through its station. It is peculiar that it is necessary to get the agreement of the Government of Ceylon and yet it is not necessary to get the agreement of His Majesty's Government to the broadcasts which go out.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: They are our broadcasts.

Mr. Profumo: They are the broadcasts of the B.B.C. whether they are going out from here or whether they are being canalised through an organisation of the Ceylon Government. Yet we have to ask the Ceylon Government, but we do not have to ask our Government. It seems to me important that there should be some restriction on what goes out and that this House should have a say in the matter.
Our broadcasts to Eastern Europe have very much improved in the last few months. That may be because His Majesty's Government have taken more interest in them and have given more advice to the Corporation. It may be because the Communistic tendencies in the countries to which we are broadcasting are more real because they are closer to us. Events in the Far East are showing that, in that part of the world, it is just as important for us to arrest the tendencies of Communism as it is nearer our own country.
The other point mentioned in the retrospective Agreement is dealt with on page 5, and I would seek some advice about this. In paragraph 7 (1), it is stated—
(a) the actual cost to the Government"—
this is a reference to the payment from the Corporation—
of providing for the use of the Corporation Studios and ancillary and office accommodation.
Does that mean that, in fact, some broadcasts are going to be originated in the


studios of Radio Ceylon, and, if so. by whom are they to be originated and what check will there be on these broadcasts? Can we be quite certain, because I am not, that if such broadcasts go out, there will be sufficient control, not only by the Government of Ceylon, but also by the B.B.C. and by the Government at home?
The Government need not be timid about what I am asking or about their responsibilities in regard to supervision of the B.B.C. Their responsibilities are perfectly clearly stated, and, if I may direct attention once more to the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, I would like to make this quotation from an earlier part of paragraph 8, from which I have already quoted:
The Foreign Office or other Government Departments concerned will be responsible for specifying the scope of the service required for reception in foreign countries.
Let the Government take that responsibility to the full, because the scope that is now required in the Far East is of paramount importance to our future.
I believe that people have been too apt to link the word "war" with the meaning of a shooting war, a shelling war, and a sinking-of-ships war. In fact, another war started in the days when we were celebrating V.E. Day and V.J. Day, and today the full meaning of the word "war" blazes out in the Far East. This most powerful weapon which we have in the weapon of the microphone, transmitting through the ether, will not be playing its full part if it is not waging political warfare. It must do that, and it should be the responsibility of the Government to see that that happens.
Therefore, we must have a very much closer co-ordination and supervision by Government Departments, and we should re-establish something in the nature of a Political Warfare Executive under the auspices of the Government, but, for heaven's sake, let us do something at once to co-ordinate all our broadcasts to the best effect, so that broadcasting can take its proper place in current events.
There are four media of warfare in 1950. There is ground warfare, sea warfare and air warfare, and there is warfare in the ether. We shall not win in the latter medium unless we understand it and apply ourselves to the problem. It is time that the Government re-drafted

its policy regarding overseas broadcasts, because we simply cannot win a war against the Communists if we try only by the methods of the music microphone.

10.19 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) made two remarks with which I am disposed to agree. The first was to the effect that the B.B.C. enjoyed too much freedom and independence and the second was that the Government need not be timid in its supervision of the activities of the B.B.C. If I might follow up those two points, at the risk of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General regarding what I am about to say as something in the nature of a repeat of what I said on 26th May, I should like to draw his attention to a problem which needs to be faced, and, if possible, settled, in the passing of this Agreement. The attitude of the B.B.C. on previous occasions in respect of its relations with its employees has been described as—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot deal with the domestic affairs of the B.B.C. on this Agreement, which is with Ceylon. That would be out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Paragraph 8 of the Agreement imposes upon the Corporation the duty of observing the fair wages clause to which my hon. Friend referred when he invited the House to approve the Agreement. Later in that paragraph reference is made to the duty imposed upon the B.B.C. under the Agreement to recognise the freedom of workpeople to become members of trade unions.

Mr. Speaker: That may be, but it does not enable one to go back into a dispute which is happening now in the B.B.C. quite regardless of Ceylon. That I must rule out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What I am seeking to avoid is a possible repetition in Ceylon of what has already happened in this country. What I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to clarify, if he will, is the interpretation being placed by His Majesty's Government upon paragraph 8 of the Agreement. Does it mean that the B.B.C, in connection with the broadcasting services in Ceylon, is to be required to recognise trade unions as bodies authorised to negotiate on behalf


of employees who will, no doubt, have to be engaged for the purpose of giving effect to this Agreement?
It so happens that Ceylon is by no means the backward area which some people may think it is, because at the end of 1948 there were no fewer than 102 registered trade unions in actual operation in Ceylon, with memberships varying from about 50 to over 100,000. It may well be that in giving effect to this Agreement in Ceylon it will be necessary to arrange suitable terms of remuneration, in the course of which it will be necessary to negotiate conditions of service in that country.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the House an idea of what the Government have in mind in asking us to accept this particular part of the Agreement, namely, paragraph 8. Hitherto, it has been found possible to argue that whereas that paragraph provides that a fair wages clause has to be carried out, and must recognise the freedom of workpeople to join trade unions, it has been possible to argue that, notwithstanding these two provisions, the B.B.C., as an employing authority in Ceylon is under no obligation to recognise the right of trade unions to negotiate on behalf of the employees concerned.
My right hon. Friend has some knowledge of the inner workings of the B.B.C., and will, I am sure, be able to give an answer to this particular point. I hope he will be able to allay some of the disquiet which is felt in some quarters over the manner in which paragraph 8 of the Agreement is to be operated.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The title of this document is "Broadcasting from Ceylon," but in his opening speech the Assistant Postmaster-General referred to the use of this service for broadcasting in South-East Asia generally and the Far East. Ceylon is not in the Far East; it is in the East. That raises the first point. Is he entirely satisfied that broadcasts from an area in the East will be entirely efficient in the vitally important task of putting over propaganda in the Far East? There is a considerable difference of outlook between the East and the Far East.
To get to real grips with whether we should approve of this or not or, even

whether if we do approve of it, we should officially condone the fait accompli, we should be given some idea of the range of this station.

Mr. Robson: As far as Japan.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman says Japan, but it would help if we were given the full facts as to how far and how long, during the period of 7½ or 8½ hours, this optimum range is attained. We are discussing a vitally important matter, and we should have a clear picture in our minds of what all these three stations—and we cannot discuss one without considering the other two—can really achieve, not, on the basis of occasionally in especially favourable circumstances, hitting the target once or twice a week. We should know what is the average utility of the station that is to do the job.
I am very willing to accept its technical efficiency, and I should like to pay a compliment to the Assistant Postmaster-General and his Department for the telephone service he has inaugurated with Singapore. It has been an enormous success, and I use it daily. I am sure that when we get them going on this, as we got them going on that, and they come to inaugurate the full service in Malaya, this technical side will be well handled.
Let us all be quite clear what is the range of each station, and whether we can get that maximum range for anything like sufficient time each day to carry out the job of putting over propaganda in the Far East. I was in the backwoods of China for over two years during the war, and saw the effect of the propaganda which was put over—a great deal of it from the enemy, but also a considerable amount from this very S.E.A.C. station, which has now changed its name.
Are we satisfied that under the terms of this agreement swiftness and suppleness will be achieved in the counter-propaganda, which must be, to a great extent, handled by this station? We must not think in terms of our own propaganda. A great deal of the propaganda has to be propaganda answering the enemy's. I have no doubt that that will be greatly intensified during the period we have in front of us.
We cannot avoid, also, the question referred to already tonight, of what is to happen when the big Malayan station comes into operation. I broadcast from the present station, and from the one in Hong Kong last year. I realise the very limited extent to which they have real access to the vast mass of people under Communist rule now in China. It would be very helpful if we were told later, to what extent the essentially complementary work of increasing the range of the Hong Kong station is to be undertaken when this one becomes merged with the main Malayan station.
It is possible that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—I thought I heard him saying under his breath just now that this was out of order—may try to avoid that question, but I think he will be very unwise to do so. While we are considering, as we must consider, under the terms of this Agreement, how we think this station under its new aegis will work, what the House and the country want to know is how the whole question of broadcasting in the Far East will develop. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the questions I am trying to put to him through the barrage created by the hon. Gentleman sitting next to him, who is speaking to him at the moment, he will give us the proper answer we are all waiting for.
I hope the Minister will tell us the full range of all these stations for the hours in which they can usefully broadcast, the extent to which overlapping can be avoided, and to what extent this station is to be taken over by the new system. The language question will be difficult, because it is not a local language which will be used for the majority of broad-casts. I should like to be assured that there will be the fullest facilities provided for this station by having on its own broadcasting staff sufficient people with knowledge of local dialects in China and even farther East. This will be vital when we come to the propaganda question.

10.31 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that this Agreement raises wide and important issues, rather wider and more important

than may perhaps appear at first sight. I have gone to some trouble to sort out the confusing picture of broadcasting in the Far East. Its wide scope is indicated by the fact that broadcasts go out already in Japanese, standard Chinese, Cantonese and several other dialects used in China, in addition to Burmese, Peninsular Malay, Indonese Malay, Siamese, Hindustani, Urdu and, maybe other languages, as well.
So far as Government Departments who have direct responsibility in this are concerned, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the War Office all have important parts to play. I do not know whether India and Pakistan, or Ceylon itself, or, for that matter, Australia and New Zealand, are broadcasting in any of these languages—that is, over and above their own language—though I expect they are. We know that the United States are broadcasting a great deal in many of these Far Eastern languages. Therefore, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions and I shall be grateful if he will do his best to reply as fully as he can.
What co-ordination is there to be, so far as Radio Ceylon is concerned, with the United States and all other non-Communist countries who are at present broadcasting in Far Eastern languages? Will there be proper liaison, understanding and co-operation between the four Government Departments and the countries who are to be concerned with the scope of these broadcasts?
A few weeks ago, after the Foreign Ministers' Conference in London, a communiqué was issued to which little attention has been paid, though I asked a Question about it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo). Following that meeting, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Mr. Edward W. Barrett, and Mr. J. B. Clark, of the B.B.C., continued the discussions on 20th May on the co-ordination of overseas information work and of broadcast propaganda with the United States. We have not heard very much about the results of these discussions, but according to the reply to my Question, on 19th June, cooperation over the whole field of overseas information work was discussed. I was told that:


Broadcasting, particularly to Eastern Europe and to other areas which are dominated or threatened by Communism, occupied an important place in the discussions and the possibilities of co-ordinating activities in this respect were fully considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 854.]
I feel that this is a most appropriate moment for the Minister for Commonwealth Relations to let the House know what has resulted from them, and whether any progress will soon be made. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford who asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on his return from Malaya on 21st June, about broadcasting from civilian stations, and the Colonial Secretary replied:
Broadcasting is indeed one of the very important services, and I am taking steps to improve the efficiency of broadcasting and shall be providing assistance from this country to that end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1308.]
The Colonial Secretary has charge of, or a very considerable influence over, the Radio Malaya Station, which is at present broadcasting on low power from Singapore. In Singapore we are constructing a station, which, when it is completed in 1951, will take over from Radio Ceylon, to which this Agreement refers. That shows that the Government are apprised of the importance of broadcasting and that considerable improvements are to be made.
I should be out of order and wasting my time if I were to touch more than lightly on the situation in the Far East, which is the backcloth against which these broadcasts are being made, but since the Government have the responsibility for the scope of the broadcasts, the languages used, and the times during which the broadcasts take place, it is not out of order to mention briefly the similarity of pattern from Afghanistan, through India, Pakistan, Burma to Korea and down through China, Siam, IndoChina and Malaya and even further afield through Indonesia to the Philippines. It is the same form of Communist aggression. Stalin said, in 1920, "England's back will be broken not on the banks of the Thames but on the banks of the Ganges, the Yangtse and the Nile." That is the very thing he is trying to bring about now. In his "Problems of Leninism" he wrote:
Where does one strike at Imperialism? Where the chain is weakest.

We are up against a highly efficient propaganda machine, and this leads me to a question I want to ask the Minister. I might mention that at this moment. possibly—I hope it is not so—British men-of-war and Australian, New Zealand and American men-of-war may be bombed and machine-gunned by Communist planes. We ought to ensure that our broadcasts are as good as they possibly can be. This raises the second question, which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford, and which I want to reinforce: What is the object of broadcasting in all these languages? Is it done for fun, or with the object of avoiding the unthinkable tragedy of another war. We know we must win the cold war and that unless we do, we shall be involved in a hot war. Cold war is an unfortunate phrase, because the war is very hot in several parts of the world.
At the end of the last war we abandoned our Political Warfare Executive but, far from abandoning their political warfare executive, the Soviet Union has increased its power immensely as the months have gone by, but we have done too little to counter the propaganda on that level. Radio Malaya—and I have stated this before—is definitely broadcasting anti-Communist propaganda. Let us be in no doubt about that. I think it is fair to presume that our Commissioner in the Far East, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, has approved of the conduct of anti-Communist propaganda through the means of Radio Malaya. The series of broadcasts entitled, "This is Communism," has been mentioned as a good example of the type of propaganda being put out. This particular series has not come in for criticism from any quarter, and so far from being criticised, it has been reprinted in the local language newspapers—I think, in all of them. So it has been popular on the air and in print.
But then the policy in Malaya, for which I presume the Colonial Secretary is responsible, is in complete contrast to the Far Eastern Section of the B.B.C., whose function, so far as I know—I am open to correction—regarding broadcasting in Far Eastern languages is concerned, is to "project Britain." It may be that this is a very laudable object in a good many ways; but surely it should not be the main object at this


moment, so far as these broadcasts are concerned. I am very doubtful of the extent to which a Chinese peasant has the slightest interest in anything which happens in this country.
I am not asking for less objectivity. We cannot be too objective. But I am not impressed by the argument that it is impossible to combine objectivity with the strongest possible propaganda. In the last 18 months, or perhaps the last two years, so far as our broadcasts to Eastern Europe are concerned, there has been a big improvement. Although I was critical 18 months ago, I will say that they are now excellent, though there may be room for improvement still.
Undoubtedly, we must thank very largely for those improvements General Sir Ian Jacob, a very brilliant man. It is true to add that he has departed from his own directive of some two years ago, wherein he laid down that the B.B.C. made no distinction between Governments and peoples. He has departed from that so far as Europe is concerned, but so far as the Far Eastern broadcasts are concerned, and they are to go through Radio Ceylon, I am inclined to think that there has been little departure from that principle.
The contrasts between the Far Eastern section of the B.B.C, and the activities of Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong are very great indeed. We must obviously be careful lest anything which we say on the air is such as in any way to help the Communists in their plans. If it were possible for them to make direct quotations from any of our broadcasts, whether in the Far Eastern service or the Home service, but particularly in the Far Eastern service, we should obviously be broadcasting material which was not appropriate.
I have in my hand the script of a Third Programme broadcast. Many of these are—

Mr. Gordon-Walker: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether this went out over Radio Ceylon?

Major Beamish: I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the line which I am taking, but these are important matters. My answer to his question is that, so far as I know, it did not actually go out over Radio Ceylon. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman

intends to ask whether I am in order. Perhaps he will let me take orders from the Chair and permit me to develop my argument. Anything which we say about the Far East, and that is what we are discussing, can have a damaging effect if it can be quoted back at us. The main question which I am putting is whether we would approve this Agreement if the money involved in it is to be wasted because that station is not going to carry out the propaganda which we want it to do.
This is an example of the sort of thing said recently on the air by the B.B.C, and, for all that I know, repeated in the Far Eastern section. It is an example of the sort of thing which, I feel, should not be sent out on the air at this juncture. It is only one brief example; an extract from an amusing story called "Shooting an Elephant," by George Orwell. I will read only one or two sentences:
In Moulmein, in Lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people—the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisonal police inspector of the town.
Then, later, it says:
I had already made up my mind that Imperialism was an evil thing, and that the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better.
A little further on it states:
All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the Empire I served and my rage against the evil spirited little beasts which tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj…
It is very good reading; I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I say that it is an example of the sort of thing which should not be said on the air at this stage, either here or anywhere else. I am not saying that this particular broadcast was typical, but it is one example which came to me; I do not think it was typical, but I do think that it should not have been made.
I am not blaming the B.B.C. for the failure to carry out the right broadcast propaganda programmes; but I am blaming the Government for their spineless approach to the deteriorating situation in the Far East, because, without a proper foreign policy, our propaganda can never be really effective; and who knows what our policy is in, for example, China, where we are wandering around asking them on what terms we shall recognise them.
The third question with which we have to concern ourselves is, why does the B.B.C. "project Britain" through its Far Eastern service, while Radio Malaya carries on a propaganda campaign mixed in with its ordinary programmes? Is Hong Kong doing propaganda, or is it not? Then, why should one Minister have one policy in the Far East, while another has a totally different policy?
Those are really important questions, and another question, which really arises out of the third, is that of broadcasting in Chinese. Can we be told what information has been received about the sort of reception there has been during the last 15 months or so, and what amount of jamming there has been in China? These are very important matters, because we are sanctioning the expenditure of a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money, and if these broadcasts are being jammed so that they cannot be heard, this is all a waste. I should have thought that the Minister would have been very well briefed on that point.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The answer is "None," but I think it will be agreed that it would be a great mistake to stop all broadcasting if there was jamming.

Major Beamish: I agree; it would be necessary to increase strength.
This is a very pertinent question. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply to it, and to the other questions, will not try to ride them off by claiming that all this is the responsibility of the B.B.C. because it is made perfectly clear by the evidence to the Select Committee on Estimates, in the 1946–47 Departmental replies, in the Seventh Report of the Select Committee, and in the Agreement, as well as in several other ways, that the overall responsibility, so far as the general policy for broadcasting is concerned—the times at which we broadcast, and the languages in which we broadcast—rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government.
Before I sit down, I want to ask one last question. It really arises out of all the ones I have asked so far. What is to be the future of Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong when the Ceylon Station is no longer required, and will the completion of Radio Malaya—that is, the high-powered station of Radio Malaya—which will be ready early in 1951,

mean the end of the valuable and excellent work at present being done by the low-powered station in Malaya? I hope I have made that clear.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No.

Major Beamish: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, "No." These crossed wires which exist so far as Government propaganda in the Far East is concerned, badly need to be uncrossed. It boils down to the fact that because the Government have no clear or definite foreign policy in the Far East, and have drifted from one crisis to another, the B.B.C. has found itself in an impossible position. The Colonial Office has one policy of broadcast propaganda while the Foreign Office has a different policy, or perhaps no policy at all. Either we do or do not wish the whole of the Far East to come under Soviet domination. If we do not wish this to happen, surely this is the time to realise that one of the most important weapons in our hands is that of truth, the weapon of political warfare on the air. [An HON. MEMBER: "Propaganda."] Propaganda which is untrue is always ineffective. I should think that would be perfectly obvious.
In default of a satisfactory reply from the Government and an assurance that urgent steps are being taken to define a clear broadcasting policy in the Far East, it is obvious to me this whole question must be raised again at the earliest possible opportunity. We simply cannot have the British taxpayers' money wasted while we wait for the Government to produce a policy in the Far East.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I believe that this matter is of very considerable importance, although I do not think that all the matters of importance raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) were strictly within the subject we are discussing tonight. The question of the Third Programme and the foreign policy of the Government is not relevant at all to the Debate. I would like to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman up on the question of the broadcasts in the Third Programme, to which he took exception, because, following that point to its logical conclusion, he is asking for Government censorship of talks and broadcasts on the


home stations. If there is anything which is lifted out of its context and broadcast, presumably by a foreign Power to the damage of this country at the present time, I might ask him just to take that a bit further and go to newspapers.
If the hon. and gallant Member asks his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who, presumably, read with considerable interest today's issue of "The Scotsman," he would find there an article on the situation in Korea and the historical developments leading up to it, many passages of which, had they been lifted, would have been very damaging indeed. Where is the hon. and gallant Member going to define this question of censorship? I really think he was on a very bad point in lifting this thing from the Third Programme, and, I am perfectly sure it did not merit the importance which he attached to it.

Major Beamish: I am prepared to admit that the fact that I lifted a broadcast from the Third Programme, and that it may not have been in Radio Ceylon, was not a particularly strong point. I was using this as an illustration of the sort of thing which should never be sent to a Far Eastern country. The last thing I wished to suggest was Government censorship of the B.B.C. broadcasts at home, let alone censorship of the Press. There is all the difference in the world, surely, between our broadcasts to a foreign country of a propaganda content and our broadcasts at home.

Mr. Ross: The relevance to the Debate lies in the fact that there is all that difference between broadcasts at home and those to foreign countries. Considering that the hon. and gallant Gentleman two or three times referred to the "spine-lessness" of the Government, I wondered why his hon. Friends who spoke earlier were criticising the Government because these broadcasts were taking place for 15 months before the Agreement came into force. There would have been much more reason to criticise the Government if the facilities had been there and the need for broadcasting had been so urgent and the Government had done nothing about it. In view of the situation in Malaya, Burma and the Far East

generally, it is all the more welcome that the Government had been issuing these broadcasts for 15 months.

Mr. Profumo: I thought that I had made it quite clear that we were criticising the Government not for having put out these broadcasts from Radio Ceylon, but for not having made the Agreement much earlier.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Member realises that in dealing with Ceylon we are dealing with another Dominion Government, and their point of view is also concerned. It takes two parties to make an agreement. I am gratified that we are using this station. I was a listener to it during the war, and if I had been asked about its range and capacity in 1945, I should probably have been able to give very full details. I can assure hon. Members that it can be heard all over the Far East, although it is sited in Ceylon. It was built specifically for that purpose. As to the technical efficiency of the Sinhalese and the Malays, whose qualifications seem to be called in doubt by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), from my knowledge and experience of them I am satisfied that they are capable of doing the job. I am sure that our technical experts who are concerned in this Agreement are equally satisfied.
To come back to the subject-matter of the broadcasts, we have heard too little about what has actually been broadcast and too much about how the broadcasts could be improved by making them pure propaganda. I know from my experience of the people whom I met in the Far East that their reaction to pure propaganda is more or less the reaction of people in this country—to dismiss it as such and pay less attention to it because it is propaganda.
I agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he said that the best propaganda is truth. He also said that untruths were the most ineffective type of propaganda. If that we so, we should not be worrying so very much, but should be encouraging these people to spread their false propaganda because of its ineffectiveness. I do not agree with him that it is ineffective. It is effective. It is because that type is effective that we must use the most effective thing we can against it—truth. If there has been any


characteristic tradition about our British news bulletins and commentaries it is that they have been reliable and true. Each time an occupied country was liberated we got the same story about people who had listened specially to the B.B.C. because they could reply on what they heard.
Do not let us underrate the intelligence of the people who are listening. We are not broadcasting entirely to illiterate Chinese peasants; the illiterate Chinese peasant has not got a wireless set. The educated people of these areas, from the point of view of doing the most damage, are the people we have to get at. It is they who listen and it is their type of mind we have to study. They are the people who will react immediately to propaganda by dismissing it.
The hon. Member for Stratford said that there was too much freedom given the B.B.C. I do not think there is any freedom given as far as these broadcasts are concerned. These broadcasts are prepared by a Foreign Office department.

Major Beamish: That is quite wrong.

Mr. Ross: It may seem quite wrong to the hon. and gallant Member, but I would point out that they are consulted on the general line they should take.

Major Beamish: Perhaps I should tell the hon. Member that the B.B.C. do not have to take the advice of the Foreign Office on anything except the languages and the times at which they should broadcast. Advice can be tendered, but the suggestion that the broadcasts are written in the Foreign Office bears no relation to the facts.

Mr. Ross: My information was that the advice was asked for and given and very often taken.

Mr. Profumo: I think the hon. Member should get his facts right before making assertions. He started by asserting that there was too much control over the B.B.C. by the Foreign Office—

Mr. Ross: I did not.

Mr. Profumo: That is the impression the hon. Member gave me. The point we are making is that it is too muddle-headed and woolly.

Mr. Ross: The point I was making was that the hon. Member for Stratford

was objecting that the B.B.C. was too free from control. I was suggesting that there were definite links and that they had to consult departments and be guided in the kind of broadcasts they were putting forward. I think the evidence given by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes about the improvement—and if he is satisfied it must have been a great improvement—in the Eastern broadcasts, does more or less, prove the point that the interests of the department concerned are studied.
The main point I want to emphasise is that we should retain our traditional reliability in broadcasting, whether it be to the Far East, the Near East or to Europe. That is what will count in the long run. If we just turn out propaganda, people will not turn on their wireless sets to listen. If they can rely on our news bulletins to get an intelligent summary, I am certain that we shall get the reaction we desire.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said. When he uses the word, "propoganda" does he mean something so obviously propaganda that it loses most of its value, or something so subtle that it puts over the point without making it apparent? I think there is confusion in his mind.

Mr. Ross: I do not think there is any confusion. Truth is truth and should not be varnished or biased.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I would first take up a reference of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. W. Ross). We are not suggesting that Radio Ceylon or any B.B.C. overseas station should go in for propaganda in its worst sense, but we wish to see the news presented in a vivid form. As an illustration, the Home news bulletin at 6 o'clock is objective and some people, perhaps, find it a little dull. Radio Newsreel at 7 p.m. is still the same truth, but it is much more vivid and many listen to it. I suggest that it is better in dealing with the simple man, to try to put over our news in a vivid form.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Radio Newsreel goes out over Radio Ceylon.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was merely following up a tradition of the House in taking up what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. It is possible to present the news in vivid form without departing from the truth.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman proves my point with his last phrase. News can be presented without making it propaganda.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is no very great difference on this point between us. We want to see Britain's news presented with a punch and vividness which can command respect, and to which people will listen. My second point is that the new station which is being built appears to be an unconscionable time in coming. After the station was started in January. 1949, the Postmaster General went to the B.B.C. in October, 1949, and asked them to carry on another three months. They must, therefore, have expected that at the end of that period, the new station would be in operation.

Mr. Hobson: May I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that everything has been done, since the approval of the Agreement, to expedite the erection of the new station?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, however hard he thumps the Box.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we built the station at Crowborough during the war in six months. He now says that it will take two years to build this one during a vital period of development in the Far East. I hope that everything possible will be done to hasten the completion of this new station so that this Agreement need not be extended for a further three or six months.
I would like to ask the Government whether they really think that the B.B.C. is to go on extending its tentacles further and further. Is it really the right instrument for carrying on overseas broadcasting? My hon. Friends have made the point that the whole background of the B.B.C. is objectivity, and yet we have more and more functions planted on the B.B.C.'s plate. It is rather like the Post Office which has to take on everything, from issuing family allowances to sending letters.
Is not the time ripe to say that the £4 million we are spending annually on overseas services of the B.B.C. should be allocated to a separate overseas broadcasting corporation? I am making no party point. I have here the Fabian Society's report. I know that it is perhaps not very popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are wearing their middle-class ties, but on page 11 it states:
We suggest that these activities"—
and they are referring to overseas broadcasting—
should be entirely divorced from home broadcasting, and made the responsibility of an overseas broadcasting corporation with its-own charter. Our reasons for this are that overseas broadcasting differs largely from home broadcasting in aims, technique, and personnel. It is already separately paid for by direct Parliamentary Vote, and its present association with home broadcasting is anomalous and confusing.'
I do not often agree with publications from that society, but I believe many of us will feel that the B.B.C. is not the right instrument to undertake broadcasting in West Africa, Ceylon, Singapore, Western Germany, B.A.O.R. or other places. I say that for two reasons. As a monopoly grows, it grows inefficient; but, more important at this stage in the Far Eastern troubles, is that it grows inflexible. To counter the propaganda put out by the enemy we want an instrument in Radio Ceylon which is extremely flexible, and technically able to counter the jamming to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. Is it not time to put the whole of our overseas broadcasting, not under the umbrella of the B.B.C, whose Charter was written for a quite different purpose, but under an overseas broadcasting corporation?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to do everything in his power to give a sense of urgency to the construction of the new high-power broadcasting station, and to carry on the one operating Radio Malaya and Radio Hong Kong. Hardly anything, at the moment, is more important than political warfare in the Far East.

11.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): The main burden of criticism from the opposite side of the House has been that there is confusion in the Government's


oversea broadcasting policy in the Far East, that we do one thing in Malaya and another at Radio Ceylon. But the confusion is really in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not seem to understand what sort of a station Radio Ceylon is. It is a re-broadcasting station, located on the soil of a free and sovereign member of the Commonwealth. The arrangements with the Government of Ceylon were laid down in an exchange of letters, in which it was made specific and clear that we should broadcast during 8½ hours re-broadcasts of our B.B.C. programmes. We are bound by agreement, therefore, to do what we are doing.
Radio Malaya is a local station, owned and run by the local Government, and in country which there is fighting going on. Its policy is determined by the local Government there, and not by His Majesty's Government here, or the B.B.C. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to imply that the overseas service of the B.B.C. was entirely useless, that if it was re-broadcast we were doing nothing in the struggle against Communism, or to win the people in the Far East to friendship and understanding with us. The overseas broadcasts of the B.B.C. are of the greatest value. I was glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) praised our oversea broadcasts in general.
We have the most effective overseas broadcasting of any country in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the independence of the B.B.C. is important. It is no good thrusting on the world the sort of propaganda we would like; we have to thrust out the sort of propaganda that people will not switch off. It is not only absolute truth we must broadcast, but acceptable truth. If we start this subtle shading off between truth and propaganda people will soon detect it, and will not listen.

Major Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman said there was a considerable difference between the sort of propaganda from Radio Malaya and the sort re-broadcast through Radio Ceylon. The implication was that the Government of Ceylon would disapprove if we used our broadcasts through Radio Ceylon in the way we would like to use them. Surely

the Ceylon Government is as strongly opposed to Communism as we are.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I did not say or imply anything of the sort. I said that we were re-broadcasting, through Radio Ceylon, the B.B.C. programmes, and that in Malaya we were doing something different. It is not that we do not want to broadcast our services over Radio Ceylon. I think our overseas services are of the greatest use in the Far East and South-East Asia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little less than fair to my hon. Friends. He stressed the fact, we all know and rejoice in, that Ceylon is an independent, sovereign State within the British Commonwealth. What was the point of stressing that unless he meant that this station could not do things we are able to do in Malaya and Hong Kong?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: It is true that I stressed that fact, because I was leading up to this Agreement made with Ceylon, which contains this condition. If we set up a station in Australia, for example, we could not do the same things that we are able to do in Malaya. It does not follow that we are doing something in Ceylon which we do not want to do. There is, of course, a difference between Colonies and colonial territories, over which we have control, and a sovereign country, either foreign or within the Commonwealth, over which we have no control; but we are very pleased with our facilities over Radio Ceylon. They are of the greatest value to us.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has really grasped the case we have presented; he is putting up something we have not said. Let me put it as a question. Assuming that the B.B.C. decided to operate a programme on our broadcasting service which was a reproduction of what was put out over the Malayan broadcast, is it not a fact that nothing in the Agreement would prevent it going out over the Ceylon radio?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Nothing in the least. If it were directed to Malaya there may conceivably be something to be said for that. We can send out over Radio Ceylon whatever we broadcast in the


overseas programme here. What they are doing in Malaya, with their grave problem, is of first-rate importance and they are doing great good for us and great harm to Communism in the Far East and South-East Asia.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman must make it clear. He must give us the range and area covered by the station.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am coming to that. I have not had much chance to get on with my speech. I should first like to answer the questions asked first.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Could I ask the Minister to make this point clear? I see his difficulty. Could he tell us whether, if he were given a free hand in Ceylon, he could not do better than he is doing now?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think we could do better than have Radio Ceylon, which is a station of great power, broadcasting to many countries, for broadcasting our overseas services of the B.B.C. I have been trying to make it clear and if it is clear now, I am pleased. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) asked about locally originated broadcasts. There are no locally originated broadcasts being broadcast from Ceylon. The matter is covered by the Agreement. Within the 8½ hours at our disposal under the Agreement any locally originated broadcasts would have to be with the specific consent of the Government of Ceylon. Outside the 8½ hours they would be broadcast by the Government of Ceylon, and we would have no control over them. But there are, in fact. none at all at the present moment
The hon. Member for Bury (Mr W. Fletcher) asked me about the range of this transmitting station. It covers the following countries: Hong Kong. China—I am not sure if it covers all China, but certainly a large part of it—Japan, Burma, Malaya, South-East Asia, French Indo-China, India and Pakistan. It does not include Ceylon, which is not reachable

because the station has too high a frequency.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the exact parts of China?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I could not read the languages, but perhaps, as the hon. Gentleman can pronounce them, I could show them to him afterwards. It will show him the actual area of China that is covered. I can also give him the precise hours, if he wants to know them. We make the best arrangement we can in the 8½ hours, and they are broadcast from London, picked up and re-broadcast from Ceylon. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) developed an argument for a separate corporation for Far Eastern broadcasting, but I think it would be unwise for Radio Ceylon to set up a separate corporation. This is a matter—though I do not agree with him—that we ought to debate when the report of the committee of inquiry into the B.B.C. comes along.
I hope the House will approve of this Agreement. We regard it as important in two respects. It is an important link with our overseas broadcasting system, and is a very valuable piece of Commonwealth co-operation, when by agreement with one Commonwealth country another can relay its broadcasts from a powerful station. I have been asked what will happen when Radio Singapore is completed in the middle of 1951. This is an extremely powerful station: it has been built quickly, though it takes a long time to build a powerful station. I have been asked whether we would go on with Radio Ceylon. That has not been finally settled, but, by the Agreement, Ceylon has agreed that if we wish to carry on, they would let us do so, though not for 8½ hours a day. Whether we would take advantage of the clause in the Agreement has not been settled, but Radio Hong Kong and Radio Malaya will continue.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Agreement, dated 8th June, 1950, between His Majesty's Postmaster General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

OLD PEOPLE'S WELFARE

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Cooper-Key: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the subject of old people's welfare committees, and of the work which is being done, and still needs to be done, for the care and well being of the old. This is a national problem and I intend to deal with it as such, but I cannot help making some remarks about the pioneer work which has been carried out in my own county of Sussex and in my constituency of Hastings. Perhaps we have been faced with the problem longer and more acutely than any other area in the country, as a consequence our authorities and associations have given it particular study. There is a saying that people go to Hastings to die and having got there forget what they came for. This is a compliment to the kindliness not only of our climate but to the resident community who in the last 50 years have built up a really comprehensive service for the aged.
The increase in our aged population has long been considered a serious problem, and it has recently been brought acutely before the public by the disclosures in the report of the Royal Commission on Population. I would refer especially to the statistics which show that 25 years from now the number of people older than 65 will increase by 50 per cent. These are alarming figures, particularly to those individuals, authorities, and associations who are in touch with the problem every day and know how small the resources at their disposal are to meet the requirements of the old people. We are today nowhere near meeting the existing requirements, and if the numbers increase in the future without proportional increase in the number of amenities, there will be tremendous hardship for a number of people in this country.
People with whom I have discussed this matter have no great confidence that the Minister is fully aware of the seriousness of the outlook, or that he is taking energetic steps to meet the future need. I have in my hand Circular 11/50, dated 23rd January, 1950, addressed to all local authorities in England and entitled,

"Welfare of Old People." This document starts by admitting that Parliament, the Press and the public are distressed and disturbed over the totally inadequate steps being taken to promote the welfare of old people. It then continues in the form of an essay in self-congratulation on the passing of the National Assistance Act and the National Health Service Act; but, except for an appeal for more volunteer workers and more voluntary welfare committees, it contains no constructive proposal or plan for the future.
I believe that if the Minister got down to the matter he could do more than he is doing. In the short time available I should like to make a few constructive suggestions. It is clear, I think, that today the main problem is not entirely one of subsistence, although pensions fall well below the present cost of living. What we are up against are the stringencies of the post-war period—lack of suitable housing, rationing, queueing, and the complexities of modern life, added to the characteristics of old age, especially loneliness and a feeling of being unwanted.
The first and most important thing about these points is that something should be done to improve the housing of these old people. But for every application received by my local authority for entry into a hostel there are ten for a small flatlet of one or two rooms. A number of houses have already been converted into these flatlets in Hastings and surrounding areas. It has been found that they do pay their way when they are established; but the capital cost of the conversion is prohibitive and the local people could not provide them. I suggest that grants should be made towards the provision of these flatlets, somewhat on the lines of the assistance which is already given towards the provision of hostels. It ought to be remembered that to accommodate an old person in, say, one room on one floor, with amenities, will often release a house containing several rooms for the accommodation of a larger family.
My second suggestion is directed towards the next most serious trouble of old age. That is the feeling of these people that they are neither wanted nor of use. I believe that every effort should be made by the Ministries, by employers, by trade unions, and by everyone else in the country, to see that elderly people shall be usefully employed for as long as


possible. There is an economic reason for this, also. At present the cost of maintenance of people of pensionable age is estimated at £238 million a year. In 1978, that is, in 28 years' time, it is estimated that the cost will be just over £500,000,000 a year. This represents a huge burden upon the economic life of the State and its working population. That must be considered along with humanitarian reasons. I think that the Minister ought to get into consultation with the trade unions and employers to see whether there cannot be produced a labour plan for people of pensionable age.
The third of my points is loneliness. Tremendous things are being done by local volunteers and local organisations in arranging parties and outings, Darby and Joan clubs, and so on, but volunteer social work today is becoming increasingly specialised and more full-time workers are needed; workers who should be adequately paid, and who, in turn, would attract a wide section of the community towards voluntary work and who would pass on a higher understanding and efficiency to the ranks below them. To some extent, these lonely old people miss the routine visits which used to be undertaken by the relieving officer, and they miss their occasional chat with the doctor. In this question of visiting, the Church has a great opportunity to regain some of that social influence which, I am afraid, it has to some extent lost in recent years.
We have experienced a revolution, and there is no doubt that a large section of elderly people, possibly with small fixed incomes or pensions, of superior education and perhaps superior service to the community, have been reduced to unaccustomed and unwarranted privation. Many of these people have little left but their pride, and these cases are probably more hard to deal with than many others. The Ministry can do much to bring them out of isolation. There is a large number of men and women in this country anxious and able to volunteer service in these cases. There is an urgent need for more of these old people's welfare committees, and there is still much for the Minister to take upon himself in performing an active part to solve this problem.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I am afraid that it is quite impossible to solve the problem of the aged population in the short space of time available on an Adjournment Debate. Although the hon. Gentleman has done a great service by raising this matter tonight, I think that he has rather over-simplified the problem. It is a complex one, because of the many changes which have taken place. Longevity can be mentioned and the problems which have arisen because of changing social impacts, but it would not be fair to ignore the great benefits which have been given in the laws passed by this Government.
Nobody who has studied this problem as I have, as chairman of the National Old People's Welfare Committee, will fail to have discovered that the important thing is to bring to them, as far as possible, normality of life. In the past there has been a tendency to recognise somebody who is old as no longer entitled to the same measure of happiness as younger people who are, because of their age, more able to enjoy life. That is a mistake. When a person gets too old to be active or to care for himself, he has in the past been put in the workhouse. Some of these places were little better than prisons; some, indeed, were worse than prisons. They have been abolished, but, strangely enough, that has created a difficulty in itself.
What are we going to do with those old people who are not ill enough to be put into hospitals but who are not strong enough to look after themselves although wanting care and attention? I appreciate the point which has been made, and I support it, that there is a great responsibility on the Ministry of Health. But the Minister of Health in passing his National Health Service Act gave to county councils and county boroughs the responsibility of becoming the welfare authorities. He said that home helps can be provided so that those who have reached the stage when they can no longer look after themselves, can be provided with domestic assistance, and those who fall ill can be provided with district nurses.
I want to support with all the power that I can, the claim that we keep these old people in their own homes as long as possible. When I say their own homes.


I do not necessarily mean the houses in which they have lived for years, but houses which are suitable for them, a bungalow type of dwelling, for instance, so that they will not need to climb stairs. One unfortunate thing about the aged is that they tend to neglect themselves. Living is an effort. Cooking a main meal is very much an effort so that they just do not do it and suffer in consequence.
Here is where the voluntary work can be done; I want to see a bridge built between the local authority and the voluntary associations in this work. As may be known by the few hon. Members who are present, there is up and down the country a vast amount of work being done by the provision of "meals-on-wheels." The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Church of England, and many other agencies are engaged in this work, but it would be unfair of me to detain the House any longer on this subject tonight. It is so difficult when one begins, to find out where to leave off. It is a problem that has many sides.
I should like to deal with the difficulty of getting old people into hospital. Here is a strange contradiction, that the very improvement of our hospitals has militated against the admission of old people. The upgraded hospital has meant that hospitals do not want to deal with acute cases and will not take old people suffering from chronic illness. This presents us with a great problem which we are not going to solve in a thirty minutes Debate on the Adjournment. I want to thank the hon. Member for raising this matter and express the hope that public attention will be focused on it. There are not too many friends of the aged in this country and to the extent that we can get the support which I think we can get of those who can give help, the hon. Member has rendered a service by raising this matter.

11.39 p.m.

Major Hicks-Beach: I want to thank my hon. Friend for initiating this Debate. Everyone will welcome the fact that he has brought this important problem before us. My hon. Friend stated that his constituency was one of the pioneers of the movement of old people's welfare committees. That may well be, but my constituency is very active too, and I hope I can lay before

the Parliamentary Secretary one or two suggestions which may help the old people. I am sure that we should all like to see the old age pension increased to more than 26s. a week. I do not want to be controversial, but we shall be told that is not economically possible at the present time.
There are two suggestions which can be put into operation, although the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able tonight to deal with them, because I appreciate that they should be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Great hardship today has been caused to old people by the increase of the tax for a wireless licence from 10s. to £1. A pound may not sound very much, but when you are getting only 26s. a week, a pound is a large sum when paid cash down. I should have thought it possible without much loss of revenue to reduce the amount of a wireless licence to 10s. for old age pensioners. If the Chancellor does not think he could do that, could the licence not be paid 10s. in January and 10s. in June. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that great hardship is caused to old age pensioners by this payment.
I think my other suggestion is practical. Old people should be given some reduction in bus fares. I am not going to enter into the question of the nationalisation of road transport, but the fact remains that it is not an impracticable proposition that the old people should be given free passes. Twenty-six shillings is a small sum to live on, and if these concessions could be given, they would benefit a class suffering great hardship. The old should be helped by all.

11.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I do not think the hon. and gallant Member expects me to reply to the points he has raised, but it is the practice in some areas for local authorities to give assistance, where old people live in old people's bungalows on housing estates managed by the authority, by way of reduced rents for wireless sets and licences. We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) for raising this question, because it is one of grave importance. It is true that we are getting older as a nation. There is a higher pro-


portion of old people in our population. That is partly the result of the fact that our average expectation of life is becoming greater.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who has done a great deal of work in this field, has said, this is a matter that needs to be tackled from a series of different angles. It cannot be looked at only in one context. We have to think of the problem of the old people in relation to our health policy, to hospital provision and to provision of the kind the hon. Member for Tottenham spoke of, part hospital and part residential home for those who slip into illness and out of it in old age. That is a real and difficult problem which we are determined to solve
There is the important problem of finding suitable housing accommodation for old people. There is the problem the hon. Member for Hastings properly raised—namely, the need to combat the danger of the isolation of old people. All these subjects are related one to another; they are not isolated one from another. We have to try to find an effective way of combining our forces on this great problem. I think we can be proud of the advances we have made and the new efforts that are being made today to find solutions to some of the difficulties, for example, in the health field.
We are all happy to know that the old institution is giving place to new residential homes for old people to a steadily increasing extent. I have been to many of them, opened some and visited many in different parts of the country. Many local authorities are using their powers under the 1948 Act to provide increasingly friendly, pleasant, residential homes for old people who are still able to get about and look after themselves to a reasonable extent.
As I think both hon. Members who have spoken will agree, our main anxiety today is to try to find means of keeping old people within the life of the community. Perhaps no one has stressed this more than my right hon. Friend, who has always insisted that if old people are to live happy and contented lives in their later years, we must do all we can to keep them in the natural flow of the community and in the life of the community,

and avoid if we can their isolation. Even if it be isolation in well-furnished, well-provided accommodation, we would still rather see them provided with accommodation if possible within the new housing estates which are being developed.
We are actively encouraging local authorities to do as much as possible to provide special housing accommodation for old people on the new housing estates they are building because we want them in the life of the community. Provision is made in the 1949 Housing Act for hostels for old people, again within the general community. There is also provision in Part II of the 1949 Act which might perhaps assist in the proposals made by the hon. Member who opened the Debate; although I cannot tell without examining those proposals whether or not further use could be made of some large houses in his constituency, in Hastings or elsewhere, by converting them into flats to form small separate dwellings, some of which would be suitable for old people and others for younger people as well. I think that within the terms of the Act it might be possible—I cannot tell without examining the precise proposals—to give assistance in the way the hon. Member mentioned.
In addition, we are anxious to do all we can to break down the feeling of isolation and separation from the general community which may be one of the most desperate features of old age. Circular 11/50 pointed out the way in which cooperation can be secured between the local authorities and old people's organisations. Another circular issued last year pointed out the way in which local authorities could make contributions towards county bodies like the organisations for old people's welfare to help them in their expenses. For example, there is a county organisation in Sussex. It is possible for the county authorities to make a contribution towards the administrative expenses of that body and to help them in stimulating local committees in the towns in the county area.
Our desire is to encourage in every way the co-operation between local authorities and the great variety of welfare organisations that are already doing most valuable work in this field. I am glad to say that Circular 11/50 sent out this year has been very well received indeed


by the local authorities. Throughout the country local authorities, with the stimulation and encouragement of this circular, and after conferences they have had with our officials, are taking the initiative in setting up joint organisations to deal with this problem. We want to encourage in every way the local authorities to work together with the voluntary organisations to avoid overlapping as far as possible. There are many examples—Nottingham is one I know from recent personal contact, but there are many throughout the country—where by joint membership of these welfare authorities steps are being taken to secure the most effective use of the numbers of workers who come in.
I am quite sure that the most useful contribution we can make to the health and happiness of our old people is to encourage the close contact of their friends and neighbours to help to keep them within the field of the community as a whole. If we can encourage visits by their own friends and neighbours through the voluntary bodies, with the assistance of the local authorities, I am sure we shall have done a great deal to break down that feeling of isolation which might spread and cause great un-happiness among our old people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes to Twelve o'Clock.